quote: Original post by Estauns
Theres no reason to take offence to it, other then perhaps the historic realism. There were no "snipers" in Viet Nam, scopes were banned from War after World War 2. The only snipers you would fine, would be very good marksmen with scopeless M16''s =P

"Where genius ends, madness begins."
Estauns

This is not true, were did you get this idea from?

Ever read Dan Simmons? He wrote the Hyperion books, Carrion Comfort, The Crook Factory, and others.

Sniping, Vietnam... His latest book is called Darwin''s Blade? Guess what it''s about?

___________________________________

What the hell is the point of a rifle that can shoot a mile and a half, and a huge ass scope, if you''re not even going to shoot someone in the eye?
If you just want to hit them in the chest use a 357 pistol!

simple, you want the person dead before they see you. Shooting the eye is highly unrealissticly simple because the bullet is affectd by things like wind, air resistence, slight descrepencies in the bullet release, All these things make aiming at somethin at 1.5 miles the size of a dime is quite silly and difficult when shooting the chest gets the job done and easier. You cant use a 357 pistol and hit something at the same range, and i highly doubt you are gonna run into a heavly guarded area to kill one person. You wont even get near the target, and if you do and manage to drop the target you will most definatly be captured by the guards.

You care too much my friend.
I have no intention of ever shooting anyone, in any situation, with any gun.
But if I did, it would definitily be a head shot.
What, did you go to sniper college or something?

If my own experience with sniper rifles over longish distances (1000yrds) is anything to go by it''s damn hard to hit anything...so the larger the target the better.

PS: it''s perfectly possible to hit the target at exactly the same point on subsequent shots despite the problem of esp. wind...on a range the shots are marked up with a spotter disc that can be shot off the target if you hit the original spot +/- ~3mm

How realistic is Silent Scope compared to real sniping? Its a game I realize and of course there are liberties taken, any idea how much?

I did not intend to have this thread start off like this guys. My question was quick and simple, and I only got a few real replys. Arguing about this is useless............

quote: Original post by JeremyR
I did not intend to have this thread start off like this guys. My question was quick and simple, and I only got a few real replys. Arguing about this is useless............

Very true. (Personally I prefer a rocketlauncher to the back of the head *sneak*sneak*BOOM! -makes such a nice red "fountain") *My* answer to *Your* question is this: nothing is sacred, and no-one is truly "good" or "right". If you want to make a sniper game, then the more power to you. While you have the gun/war experts here, though... it might be worth your while to troll for info on physics, dynamics of motion, or whatever.
-Tok.

A friend of mine has a cigarette lighter cover made from the case of a bullet for a sniper rifle. This thing is about 15mm across, and is rated as a light anti tank weapon at ranges of up to a mile. It is also pretty much the largest calibre weapon that can be fired by a human being - and then they have to be well braced and very strong to fire it.

Any person hit by this thing is going to be dead or very seriously injured, wherever it hits. The shockwave from the impact will shatter all nearby bones, and the exit wound will be huge. The force of the impact alone is probably enough to kill someone.

You dont want to waste your time aiming at someones head. Aim at the central body mass and you are more likely to hit - and therefore more likely to kill - your target.