# Canadian Sniper Sets Longest Shot Record



## tomahawk6 (22 Jun 2017)

BZ to the JTF2 sniper !! Quite the feat !!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4628224/Canadian-sniper-kills-ISIS-fighter-TWO-MILES-away.html


 A Canadian sniper has beat the record for the longest confirmed kill in military history by picking off an ISIS fighter from a staggering 11,319 feet.
The bullet was fired from a McMillan TAC-50 rifle set on a high-rise tower and took 10 seconds to travel the 2.14 miles towards the fighter, who was attacking Iraqi soldiers.
This smashed the last record set by a Briton Craig Harrison, who killed a Taliban soldier with a 338 Lapua Magnum rifle at a range of 8,120 feet(1.54 miles) in 2009.


A military source told The Globe and Mail the kill was verified by video, adding: 'This is an incredible feat. It is a world record that might never be equalled.'
The third longest kill was by Canadian Corporal Rob Furlong, who shot down an Afghan insurgent from 7,972 feet(1.51 miles) in 2002 during Operation Anaconda. 
And prior to that, Master Corporal Arron Perry hit a terrorist from 7579 feet. He was also Canadian and serving in the same operation. 
The longest kill from a US sniper was done by sergeant Bryan Kremer, who hit an Iraqi insurgent at 7,546 feet(1.42 miles) with his Barrett M82A1 rifle in 2004.


----------



## sidemount (22 Jun 2017)

Insane shot


3.44 km away.....just insane


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Jun 2017)

BZ Troop!


----------



## Infant_Tree (22 Jun 2017)

But did he no-scope him?


----------



## NavyShooter (22 Jun 2017)

Based on some reports, it's 3450m, others are reporting 3540m.  Either way, that's a heck of a shot.

Some data points to consider. 

Time of Flight to 3450m ~ 10 seconds
Projectile velocity @ 3450m ~ 700 FPS

Bullet drop:   
3400m     +400" from Line of Sight
3450m        At line of Sight
3500m     -450" from line of sight.

My guestimate based on these numbers is that the Dangerous Space for this shot is approximately 9 meters....less than 30 feet.   If you miss-called the range by 15 feet either direction, you'd miss.

That is.....pretty tough to do.  There's certainly a mountain of skill behind that shot, but I would imagine also a bunch of luck.

My thought is that there may have been a mid-range spotter providing closer in correction to fall of shot.

Unless there's a bullet a lot more special and capable than a Hornady A-Max being used.

NS


----------



## medicineman (22 Jun 2017)

I remember watching one of our snipers from 2RCR when we went to Kabul in '03 putting some rounds through the TAC-50...after a few closer in shots (5-700m) to warm up, his spotter lased him onto a target that was about 2000m to our front, up hill, with a stiff breeze.  He pulled out a little computer to do some calculations, dialed the dope into the scope and first shot dropped short by about 15ft...second hit the target.

I'd agree that there was a fair degree of luck there at 3K+ range...the mirage alone must have been a bit of a beatch.  This dude was apparently in an elevated position to boot, just add another degree of difficulty  to adjust for (hence why they have a computer for the long shots).

Very glad they're on our side...

MM


----------



## Rifleman62 (22 Jun 2017)

FOX News did a report and showed a graphic with the Cdn Flag at 1,3, and 4 position for longest shot plus distance of each shot. Similar graphic as the G & M except FOX dropped the number 5, the US!

This is_ another _FOX report: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/22/canadian-sniper-sets-world-record-with-2-1-mile-pickoff-isis-fighter.html


----------



## Hound Dog (22 Jun 2017)

2.14 miles. Now that's mind-blowing.




Pun intended  >


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Jun 2017)

I ended up co-located with some snipers in Kandahar and luckily got a chance to fire both the Tiberwolf and Tac50. Both rifles nailed 500m targets with no special training on their first shots. Its pretty clear what those rifles can do in the hands of our trained snipers after months of training for just basic sniper, let alone any SOF sniper training they would get. Remarkable.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jun 2017)

Given the rather dramatic jump in range between this and previous records, I wonder if there was either some new development in optics, or perhaps some new development in ammunition technology in play here? 

A saboted round carried inside the .50 cartridge would have much more velocity and a flatter trajectory, for example (This might be a development of the 80's era SLAP round technology, for example). Various computerized scopes have been developed over the years as well, which would make the ranging and aiming more accurate and less time consuming.


----------



## NavyShooter (23 Jun 2017)

Fired a Timberwolf at 700m, and planted 3 hits in a nice tight group.  

Looked at their culmination point data, and their elevations are just about half of what .308 match does, so their 'dangerous space' is much longer.

Culmination point on a .308 at 800m is about +9.5 Mils I recall.  Their .338 was +5 Mils.  

I've pondered the 'new ammo' option as well, and the numbers I put in up higher leave me pondering that a lot.  The retained velocity and drop on a standard round at 3500m is just....incredible.   Like I said, the dangerous space is sooooo tiny, like on the order of 30 feet.  A 15 foot mis-range (that's 5 meters off) at that distance equals a miss.

Unless there's something magical (or really new/different) about the ballistics of the round they fired.


----------



## devil39 (23 Jun 2017)

Ahhhh the quiet professionals  :

Clearly an incredible shot through


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Jun 2017)

The Globe and Mail did a story about this.  Apparently the first comment says "Congratulations Harjit Sajjan, great shot"   :rofl:


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Jun 2017)

devil39 said:
			
		

> Ahhhh the quiet professionals  :



I don't think the guy has a movie/book deal signed, so that's a little bit of an unfair character assassination. There is a CANFORGEN out that would make the fact that they were deployed with a SOF Task Force Secret information, so it would preclude the individual from ever identifying themselves as the one who made the shot.


----------



## devil39 (23 Jun 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I don't think the guy has a movie/book deal signed, so that's a little bit of an unfair character assassination. There is a CANFORGEN out that would make the fact that they were deployed with a SOF Task Force Secret information, so it would preclude the individual from ever identifying themselves as the one who made the shot.



Not an individual character assassination, more organizational, and if an individual assassination, then it rests at the top.  I guess it all depends on how stringent is your OPSEC policy.  I speculate that in "days of old" this would not have seen the light of day.


----------



## Remius (23 Jun 2017)

devil39 said:
			
		

> Not an individual character assassination, more organizational, and if an individual assassination, then it rests at the top.  I guess it all depends on how stringent is your OPSEC policy.  I speculate that in "days of old" this would not have seen the light of day.



Yes, in the days of old this would not have seen the light of day but not for any OPSEC reason.  More for political reasons because the government was afraid to tell Canadians what their military really does and can do.  The result leads to peacekeeper myth, danger pay removal and lack of support.  

BZ to this sniper team. And I'm happy to see the coverage of this worldwide.


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Jun 2017)

Every so often the brass allows a story like this to go public. It helps with morale,recruiting and PR. Last year there was an SAS sniper story that became public in the BBC. It allows the special ops community to get some credit. Of course the sniper wasnt identified and leaves everyone wondering what technology enabled the feat to occur. Leaves the bad guys wondering too.


----------



## Haggis (23 Jun 2017)

As expected, many of the MSM stories of this feat are being commented on by the trolls, naysayers, debunkers and other "experts in kinetic conflict resolution through applied ballistics".


----------



## Old EO Tech (23 Jun 2017)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Fired a Timberwolf at 700m, and planted 3 hits in a nice tight group.
> 
> Looked at their culmination point data, and their elevations are just about half of what .308 match does, so their 'dangerous space' is much longer.
> 
> ...



I'm thinking, as an EO Tech, that at that range there must have been special ammo and an electronic FCS driven scope too....but all speculation as that will never be released of course.

Jon


----------



## Retired AF Guy (23 Jun 2017)

Thomas Mulcair, Leader of the NDP, has some questions for the PM:  Letter from Mulcair to PM - 23 Jun 2017.


----------



## Old Sweat (23 Jun 2017)

And the interim leader of the NDP takes issue with the Liberal promise that our troops would not engage in combat in this CP story reproduced under the fair dealings provision of the copyright act. 

Mulcair raises red flags after Canadian sniper breaks record in Iraq
By The Canadian Press — Jun 23 2017

OTTAWA — NDP leader Tom Mulcair is forgoing the celebration and raising red flags after reports a Canadian sniper in Iraq broke the world record for the longest confirmed kill.

National Defence says the sniper is a member of the ultra-secret Joint Task Force 2 unit deployed as part of Canada's mission against ISIL, and that his target was more 3.5 kilometres away.

That is more than a kilometre farther than the previous record, which was held by a British sniper who shot a Taliban fighter in Afghanistan in 2009.

But while news of the shot is spreading around the world like wildfire, Mulcair has written to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau raising concerns about what the shot means for Canada's mission in Iraq.

In particular, Mulcair says the incident raises fresh questions about the Liberals' promise that Canadian soldiers would not be involved in combat with ISIL.

The government has long maintained that Canadians soldiers in Iraq are not in combat, even though their so-called "advise and assist" mission allows them to shoot and kill ISIL fighters.


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Jun 2017)

Taliban Tom?


----------



## Blackadder1916 (23 Jun 2017)

A fantastic feat of marksmanship, however, should the sniper be married, how will he explain to his spouse his inability to be equally on target when said target is the toilet bowl.


----------



## dimsum (23 Jun 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Taliban Tom?



After reading the letter (and, surprisingly, agreeing with it), I wouldn't say he's being Taliban Tom.  He's asking why, considering the official stance is "advise and assist", why it's not changing to "combat" if things like this are happening.  

Essentially, he's asking for the current government to be honest about the mission mandate.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (23 Jun 2017)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> After reading the letter (and, surprisingly, agreeing with it), I wouldn't say he's being Taliban Tom.  He's asking why, considering the official stance is "advise and assist", why it's not changing to "combat" if things like this are happening.
> 
> Essentially, he's asking for the current government to be honest about the mission mandate.



The snipers were simply making use of the "assist" part of advise and assist.   Eliminating opfor is assisting friendlies isn't it?


----------



## gryphonv (23 Jun 2017)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> After reading the letter (and, surprisingly, agreeing with it), I wouldn't say he's being Taliban Tom.  He's asking why, considering the official stance is "advise and assist", why it's not changing to "combat" if things like this are happening.
> 
> Essentially, he's asking for the current government to be honest about the mission mandate.



This is the double edged sword of releasing details about activities done by our special ops.

Their mandate and scope is beyond any publicly known missions.

I wish they kept this 'genie' under a lid to be honest, congratulated the guy in private(which I'm sure was already done) instead of making it public knowledge. Because stuff like Mr. Mulcair questioning it publicly will and should happen.

Imagine the political firestorm if all details on missions done by special ops guys became public.


----------



## gryphonv (23 Jun 2017)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> A fantastic feat of marksmanship, however, should the sniper be married, how will he explain to his spouse his inability to be equally on target when said target is the toilet bowl.



Easy, if she is so concerned she can be his spotter each and every time he has to go do his duty.


----------



## dimsum (24 Jun 2017)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> This is the double edged sword of releasing details about activities done by our special ops.
> 
> Their mandate and scope is beyond any publicly known missions.
> 
> ...



Well, the difference I noticed this time around was that the NDP did *not* suggest it should stop.  So that's something.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jun 2017)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> After reading the letter (and, surprisingly, agreeing with it), I wouldn't say he's being Taliban Tom.  He's asking why, considering the official stance is "advise and assist", why it's not changing to "combat" if things like this are happening.
> 
> Essentially, he's asking for the current government to be honest about the mission mandate.


"Training mission" is the same as "Peacekeeping mission". Government seems happen to manipulate the public perception and approval.


----------



## Haggis (24 Jun 2017)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Well, the difference I noticed this time around was that the NDP did *not* suggest it should stop.  So that's something.



....wait for it...

Along with demands for an apology to the family and financial compensation.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jun 2017)

[quote author=gryphonv] 

I wish they kept this 'genie' under a lid to be honest, congratulated the guy in private(which I'm sure was already done) instead of making it public knowledge. Because stuff like Mr. Mulcair questioning it publicly will and should happen.

Imagine the political firestorm if all details on missions done by special ops guys became public.
[/quote]

I did find it strange too, but, have you considered the liberal government made sure this was released  on purpose? 

With the US busting our balls because of our military spending and activities,  a 3500 meter kill shot against ISIS in Iraq by special forces makes it harder to say we're not contributing.  
Some icing (ISISing ha) on the budget cake. 
Canada's tiny underfunded underequipped military looks like rockstars again all for the price of a. 50match round. Pretty smart.


----------



## Old Sweat (24 Jun 2017)

The National Post, in this editorial reproduced under the fair dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, raises the same issue as Tom Mulcair, but provides rationale for its position in support of the shot.

National Post View: The Liberals say we're not 'combating' ISIL, yet our snipers are being lauded for record-setting kill shots
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/national-post-view-the-liberals-say-were-not-combatting-isil-yet-our-snipers-are-being-lauded-for-record-setting-kill-shots/wcm/18d8f92c-7e70-4b99-b769-647da3a39025

A Canadian sniper successfully engaged an ISIL soldier, setting a new world record for longest-ever confirmed kill. Sounds like combat, no?
National Post View
June 23, 2017
7:26 PM EDT

The Canadian military got some well-deserved positive publicity this week with the announcement that a Canadian sniper team serving in Iraq set a new world record for the longest-ever confirmed kill. According to Canadian Special Operations Command, the two-man team (which was serving with the special operations unit Joint Task Force 2) successfully engaged an ISIL soldier at a range of 3,540 metres. That’s 3.5 kilometres. More than two miles. This shatters the previous world record held by a British army sniper by more than a kilometre.

It’s a good news story, and further confirmation that Canada’s snipers are the best in the world (three of the top five long-range kill shots were obtained by Canadian troops, with an American and Briton rounding out the list). It’s also likely that the shot saved the lives of friendly Iraqi forces and civilians who may otherwise have been endangered by an airstrike.

So bravo. Well done. But doesn’t that sound an awful lot like, you know, combat?

Canadian military forces have been involved in the fight against the Islamic State for years. But in early 2016, the then-newly elected Liberal government decided to end Canada’s combat role in Syria and Iraq. CF-18 jets that had been bombing ISIL targets in these two countries were withdrawn; two refuelling aircraft and a reconnaissance plane stayed behind. Meanwhile, the Liberals rebuffed suggestions that Canada was doing less to stop ISIL, noting that it was dispatching additional ground forces to Iraq to provide training, leadership and other forms of non-combat support to Iraqi and Kurdish units. The government was emphatic: these troops would not seek to engage the enemy, but would defend themselves if it became necessary (which it did, on more than one occasion). These occasional defensive skirmishes aside, however, the role of the Canadian forces was clear: advise and assist, but do not seek to engage. 

Or so the public was told at the time. If the government has amended its policy, it hasn’t said so. Which is what makes this week’s reports of incredible marksmanship by a Canadian commando so interesting. A 3.5 kilometre sniper shot is many things: a tremendous feat of arms, first and foremost. And if it saved the lives of allied troops and innocent civilians, it’s also a blessing. But there are two things it most certainly is not: training assistance or urgent defensive fire.

If Canadian troops are now actively engaging ISIL forces, helping speed the collapse of its odious caliphate, we would be delighted. We opposed the Liberals’ decision to end our combat mission and would welcome a reversal of it. Some media reports claim military sources have told them that Canadian sniper teams are actively involved against ISIL beyond this single sniper incident. If so, good.

But the government should not have kept this reversal a secret from the public.

On Thursday, the military implied that there had been no reversal. “As stated multiple times in the past, members of the Canadian Special Operations Task Force do not accompany leading combat elements, but enable the Iraqi security forces who are in a tough combat mission,” a military spokesperson said. That’s fair, but in the context of snipers, also meaningless. Snipers are not typically members of leading combat elements. That’s the whole point of snipers; they’re required to be effective over long ranges precisely because they’re not usually deployed at the front. Hypothetically speaking, the military could deploy a thousand sniper teams to Iraq and set them loose on ISIL from miles away. The resulting devastation to the enemy would not technically require the deployment of Canadian troops to the front. But it would, of course, be absurd to then argue that combat was not occurring.

Similarly, artillery and tank rounds can kill over even longer ranges, also well back from the front. So can our CF-18s, which engage targets from such distances the pilots often never see their targets. But if the Canadian military sent artillery, tanks and CF-18 jets to Iraq and set them loose on the enemy, we would not pretend we were engaged in anything other than combat. As these examples make clear, there is no logical basis for treating sniper teams any differently. Combat is binary: you’re either in it or you’re not. And if we’re actively choosing to get involved (and not just in defensive action), we’re engaged in a combat mission. 

And so we should be. Canada clearly has some of the world’s best snipers, and in ISIL, we have an enemy deserving of total destruction. The Liberals have recently spoken of Canada’s need to wield hard power, and this is exactly that. Let’s use it, but use it honestly. The public supported military action against ISIL before. It likely would again. The government simply needs to be honest about the good and necessary work our soldiers are already doing.

_-- mod edit to add link --_


----------



## George Wallace (24 Jun 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> [quote author=gryphonv]
> 
> I wish they kept this 'genie' under a lid to be honest, congratulated the guy in private(which I'm sure was already done) instead of making it public knowledge. Because stuff like Mr. Mulcair questioning it publicly will and should happen.
> 
> Imagine the political firestorm if all details on missions done by special ops guys became public.




I did find it strange too, but, have you considered the liberal government made sure this was released  on purpose? 

With the US busting our balls because of our military spending and activities,  a 3500 meter kill shot against ISIS in Iraq by special forces makes it harder to say we're not contributing.  
Some icing (ISISing ha) on the budget cake. 
Canada's tiny underfunded underequipped military looks like rockstars again all for the price of a. 50match round. Pretty smart.
[/quote]

Good points, and very valid.  

Those concerned with security will agree that these matters really are not, and should not, be Public knowledge for OPSEC reasons; yet a 'failing' Government would like to use whatever it can to prop up its credibility.


----------



## Underway (24 Jun 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Those concerned with security will agree that these matters really are not, and should not, be Public knowledge for OPSEC reasons; yet a 'failing' Government would like to use whatever it can to prop up its credibility.



I'm all for OPSEC.  But I for one think that we consistently overdo OPSEC in the CAF.  This of course includes announcing to the public just how good we are.  

Consider this for a second.  If only 1/10 of the successful submarine operations were released to the press in the past 10 years we might not have as many problems explaining to the public why submarines are so important.  The recently released information on how a Canadian sub on exercise was rapidly retasked to track suddenly active russians was a good news story that was a middle ground between OPSEC and giving the RCN submariners their due.

This story is similar.  A record breaking shot fighting the good fight is something too crow about.  Where, when, how are not in the briefing and I think this is a good balance.  The public needs to know what their troops are doing, especially when they are doing things right.


----------



## dimsum (24 Jun 2017)

Underway said:
			
		

> The recently released information on how a Canadian sub on exercise was rapidly retasked to track suddenly active russians was a good news story that was a middle ground between OPSEC and giving the RCN submariners their due.



Wait, what released info   ???


----------



## PPCLI Guy (24 Jun 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Those concerned with security will agree that these matters really are not, and should not, be Public knowledge for OPSEC reasons; yet a 'failing' Government would like to use whatever it can to prop up its credibility.



You actually broke the sound barrier there with your rush to confirm your believe that the Liberals are evil.   :boring:


----------



## Underway (24 Jun 2017)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Wait, what released info   ???



First thing that popped up when I googled it.  There may be better articles out there.... (wow, recent is not correct, this article is a year old but you get my point...).
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/05/28/canadian-sub-in-underwater-hunt-for-russian-vessel.html


----------



## mariomike (24 Jun 2017)

Underway said:
			
		

> First thing that popped up when I googled it.  There may be better articles out there.... (wow, recent is not correct, this article is a year old but you get my point...).
> https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/05/28/canadian-sub-in-underwater-hunt-for-russian-vessel.html



Also discussed on Milnet.ca
https://army.ca/forums/threads/60997/post-1437592.html#msg1437592
Reply #364


----------



## Kat Stevens (24 Jun 2017)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> You actually broke the sound barrier there with your rush to confirm your believe that the Liberals are evil.   :boring:



Zing!!   :rofl:


----------



## George Wallace (24 Jun 2017)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> You actually broke the sound barrier there with your rush to confirm your believe that the Liberals are evil.   :boring:



I don't think they are smart enough to be 'evil'.

Perhaps you can do me a great favour though; WTF exactly is this "Escalator Tax" on beer they dreamt up?  Will we soon see a 200% Tax on beer?


----------



## RocketRichard (24 Jun 2017)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Zing!!   :rofl:



Double zing!


----------



## gryphonv (24 Jun 2017)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> Double zing!



Betcha that insurgent wished he heard a zing that day.


----------



## jmt18325 (24 Jun 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I don't think they are smart enough to be 'evil'.
> 
> Perhaps you can do me a great favour though; WTF exactly is this "Escalator Tax" on beer they dreamt up?  Will we soon see a 200% Tax on beer?



The federal excise tax on alcohol hasn't changed since 1990.  It was this year raised 5 cents, and will continue to increase with inflation, just live most everything else in the world.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Jun 2017)

Underway said:
			
		

> This story is similar.  A record breaking shot fighting the good fight is something too crow about.  Where, when, how are not in the briefing and I think this is a good balance.  The public needs to know what their troops are doing, especially when they are doing things right.



Not if you're trying to avoid getting sucked into a conflict where your public/ politicians aren't willing to back you up.

For the US, escalation in the Vietnam conflict got started with a few 'perimeter patrols' around air bases, by Air Force guys (one of whom was a Canadian in the USAF, who I know, that was a sniper/ sharpshooter).


----------



## devil39 (25 Jun 2017)

Clearly can be construed as an OPSEC violation.  Having managed a few OPSEC programs this would have never have been approved from the perspective of TTPs, capabilities etc.

But I guess when your Commander is a Publicity Whoore savvy brand salesman, anything is up for auction.


----------



## RocketRichard (25 Jun 2017)

devil39 said:
			
		

> Clearly can be construed as an OPSEC violation.  Having managed a few OPSEC programs this would have never have been approved from the perspective of TTPs, capabilities etc.
> 
> But I guess when your Commander is a Publicity Whoore savvy brand salesman, anything is up for auction.


Of which 'Commander' do you speak? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (25 Jun 2017)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> Of which 'Commander' do you speak?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Read between the lines  8)


----------



## Underway (25 Jun 2017)

devil39 said:
			
		

> Clearly can be construed as an OPSEC violation.  Having managed a few OPSEC programs this would have never have been approved from the perspective of TTPs, capabilities etc.
> 
> But I guess when your Commander is a Publicity Whoore savvy brand salesman, anything is up for auction.



The largest enemy to the CAF after our own politicos is our own policy.  OPSEC is a policy.  Often its taken from old and out of date previous existing policies, with little application to modern technology or understanding of current media.  Risk management in these cases moves to risk aversion which has a positive feedback into to much and bad policy.  

There is nothing released here that was a violation of anything but the most overly stringent and anal retentive narrow minded of OPSEC.  It happened a few months ago (time relevance), they didn't say the place.  The range, capability, TTP's of sniper rifles and sniper teams are open source and can be found on any number of websites or TV shows, and most of the media reports of the incident interview former snipers to get a better explanation than what was provided by the military.  Hell we talk about them here on any number of threads.  The names of the people involved was not released.   There appears to be no threat to a currently running operation or the persons involved, nor anything resembling significant impact on future operations.   

No, not an OPSEC violation. Just risk management instead of risk aversion.  We need more of it.


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Jun 2017)

I also think we'd want it out in the open that our snipers can make shots out to 3.5km... kinda influences the enemy's decision making a little bit.

I have a feeling this is less about the shot or OPSEC, than devil39 having a personal bias against CANSOF/MGen Rouleau.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (25 Jun 2017)

Underway said:
			
		

> The largest enemy to the CAF after our own politicos is our own policy.  OPSEC is a policy.  Often its taken from old and out of date previous existing policies, with little application to modern technology or understanding of current media.  Risk management in these cases moves to risk aversion which has a positive feedback into to much and bad policy.
> 
> There is nothing released here that was a violation of anything but the most overly stringent and anal retentive narrow minded of OPSEC.  It happened a few months ago (time relevance), they didn't say the place.  The range, capability, TTP's of sniper rifles and sniper teams are open source and can be found on any number of websites or TV shows, and most of the media reports of the incident interview former snipers to get a better explanation than what was provided by the military.  Hell we talk about them here on any number of threads.  The names of the people involved was not released.   There appears to be no threat to a currently running operation or the persons involved, nor anything resembling significant impact on future operations.
> 
> No, not an OPSEC violation. Just risk management instead of risk aversion.  We need more of it.



Dangerous statement to make seeing that we exist at the behest of those politicos.  Not trying to flame anyone here but revealing his information directly challenges the Government's assertion that we are just "advising and assisting".  

It's a pretty slippery slope we are on right now.  Luckily, nobody really likes Dae'sh but we need to be cognizant of mission creep.  As has been mentioned many times on this before:

"Events, dear boy, events"


----------



## jmt18325 (25 Jun 2017)

Advise and assist - this was part of the assist.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (25 Jun 2017)

We occasionally lend the Kurds a Todd Bertuzzi to help Markus Naslund out, got it  ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Jun 2017)

Another bad guy sent to the hot place. They don't respond well to hugs and tea.


----------



## Cloud Cover (25 Jun 2017)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Fired a Timberwolf at 700m, and planted 3 hits in a nice tight group.
> 
> Looked at their culmination point data, and their elevations are just about half of what .308 match does, so their 'dangerous space' is much longer.
> 
> ...



And there's the issue of the target remaining in a static position for the TOF. They must have had very good eyes on him and some good information about his capacity, which seems to be confirmed by the acknowledgement of video of the events. All safety checks must have been in place, because in that amount of time the intended target may be replaced by some other unfortunate soul walking through the line of shot. Perhaps the target was another sniper himself....


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jun 2017)

Maybe the sniper used DARPA's homing bullets...


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Jun 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Maybe the sniper used DARPA's homing bullets...



I was thinking about those magic bullets.  Should one be used for a long distance hello like this, how would that effect the record per se?  Would a bullet that isn't just down to the skill of the sniper once it leaves the muzzle still be valid or is it cheating to some degree?


----------



## Cloud Cover (25 Jun 2017)

If that's the case, then the company that developed EXACTO for DARPA has a most appropriate trademark logo: Teledyne Scientific and Imaging- "Everywhereyoulook(TM)"    :nod:


----------



## devil39 (25 Jun 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I also think we'd want it out in the open that our snipers can make shots out to 3.5km... kinda influences the enemy's decision making a little bit.
> 
> I have a feeling this is less about the shot or OPSEC, than devil39 having a personal bias against CANSOF/MGen Rouleau.



Very bold PuckChaser.... But seriously it is nothing personal.  I really like CANSOF.

If I met the aforementioned person on the street we'd shake hands, probably have a beer, and I'd be able tell him the same to his face.  He's heard worse from me.


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Jun 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Maybe the sniper used DARPA's homing bullets...



Well... 

As I recall, one of the sniper's main weapons is observation and they can use everything available on the battlefield, including atry and fast air so, in this circumstance, I'm guessing that nothing else was available and you could therefore probably call this achievement a sound 'Plan B'.  [


----------



## Journeyman (26 Jun 2017)

devil39 said:
			
		

> He's heard worse from me.


No one who knows you doubts that.  Shyness, or an overly sensitive brain-mouth filter, have never been issues.   ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Jun 2017)

Underway said:
			
		

> First thing that popped up when I googled it.  There may be better articles out there.... (wow, recent is not correct, this article is a year old but you get my point...).
> https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/05/28/canadian-sub-in-underwater-hunt-for-russian-vessel.html



It would help if the DND info machine would also update the "Fleet Status" for the subs occasional


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 Jun 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> It would help if the DND info machine would also update the "Fleet Status" for the subs occasional



 :rofl:


----------



## gryphonv (28 Jun 2017)

Meanwhile in Syria....

https://streamable.com/jnfkt


----------



## dapaterson (28 Jun 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> No one who knows you doubts that.  Shyness, or an overly sensitive brain-mouth filter, have never been issues.   ;D



I'm confused. 


Are you talking about devil39 or yourself?


----------



## CEDE NULLIS (28 Jun 2017)

‘Sorry aboot that, eh’ — Canadian sniper apologizes after record-breaking kill shot

By Cat Astronaut  On Jun 24, 2017 

OTTAWA — A Canadian sniper apologized today after he was confirmed to have scored the longest lethal shot on record, according to sources.

The sniper, whose identity is being withheld for operational security reasons, said he was sorry both to the ISIS fighter he killed and to the former record-holder, British soldier Craig Harrison, whose record his 2.2-mile shot smashed by over 3,000 feet.

“Sorry aboot that, eh,” the sniper supposedly said as the .50 caliber round ripped through the insurgent’s thoracic cavity. “I thought that was a dern moose, friend.”

According to experts, Canadian standard operating procedure is to ask a target’s permission before ending his life, so as to maintain a spirit of good sportsmanship.

“We’re all aboot friendship and fair play up here in Canada, even if we’re just killing a bunch of hosers like ISIS,” said Canadian military spokesman Mick Robinson. “All the famous Canadians that everyone’s heard of like Frank Boucher and Jack Bionda would tell you the same, buddy.”

After hiding out in full-body denim ghillie suits for days, the sniper team allegedly returned to their base where they celebrated with a “specially prepared dinner of maple syrup, Tim Horton’s doughnuts, Molson Ice, and poutine for the Québécois comm. guy.”

Robinson says this shot will “stand right up there with Gretzky’s hat trick against Calgary in ’88” as one of the greatest moments in Canadian history.

“I’d say that was aboot as accurate as a Gordie Howe slapshot, eh,” said Robinson while sitting in a refrigerator and sharpening his ice skates. “I don’t even know what a 2.2 miles is, but I’m scared to look it up.”

“You happen to catch the score of the curling match?”


https://www.duffelblog.com/2017/06/canadian-sniper-kill-shot-record/


----------



## medicineman (28 Jun 2017)

I was waiting for the Duffle Blog article on this  :nod:

MM


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Jun 2017)

Executive summary: Poop or get off the potty  :nod:

Why the Canadian Sniper Story is Important

Third, Canada must do more in Iraq and Syria.

Don't get me wrong. Those soldiers currently deployed in Iraq are exceptional, as we've seen. The problem is what they're being allowed and not allowed to do. And in the end, this is a political failing.

In 2016, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ended Canada's air force fighter deployment to Iraq. And while deploying more military trainers to Iraq (of which JTF-2 form a component), his government continues to restrict the missions that those forces can undertake. Additionally, while Canada will increase defense spending in the coming years, Trudeau's government has not committed to fully fund its ongoing mission in Iraq.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/why-the-canadian-sniper-story-is-important/article/2626844


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Jun 2017)

Too bad Stompin Tom wasn't around. And for the record, not all Canadians say "aboot" in place of "about". Just some.


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 Jun 2017)

I have never heard anyone in real life say "aboot" in place of "about".


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Jun 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I have never heard anyone in real life say "aboot" in place of "about".


Same here - or "hoose" instead of "house".


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Jun 2017)

Pretty funny how every Canadian accent ever shown on US tv is identical to the ones from Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota.


----------



## McG (28 Jun 2017)

The PM is proud of the shooter's work.


> *Canadian sniper's shot 'entirely consistent' with non-combat role, Trudeau says*
> Liberals face renewed criticism over claim that special forces operations in Iraq are 'advise and assist'
> Murray Brewster
> CBC News
> ...


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-sniper-shot-iraq-1.4179825


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jun 2017)

medicineman said:
			
		

> I was waiting for the Duffle Blog article on this  :nod:
> 
> MM



Why were you waiting?  I posted that days ago in Radio Chatter.   :warstory:


http://army.ca/forums/threads/85928/post-1493409.html#msg1493409


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jun 2017)

Out of Washington:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> OPINION
> Why the Canadian sniper story is important
> Wednesday, June 28, 2017
> by Tom Rogan | Jun 22, 2017, 4:25 PM
> ...



More on LINK.


----------



## medicineman (28 Jun 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Why were you waiting?  I posted that days ago in Radio Chatter.   :warstory:
> 
> 
> http://army.ca/forums/threads/85928/post-1493409.html#msg1493409



Been screening without really reading...


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Jun 2017)

A bit more perspective, via The Canadian Press ...


> The sniper who shattered the record for the longest confirmed kill also saved lives, the deputy commander of Canadian special forces said.
> 
> Brig.-Gen. Peter Dawe told The Canadian Press on Wednesday that Islamic State fighters were gathering for an attack on an unsuspecting Iraqi military unit when the Canadian commando fired the 3.5-kilometre shot.
> 
> ...


----------



## Loachman (2 Jul 2017)

Canadian Sniper 2.2 mile Confirmed Hit - SHOT ANALYSIS ~ Rex Reviews
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzwY6jIwr2o


----------



## medicineman (2 Jul 2017)

I'd like to see the Ozzy Man Review on this.

MM


----------

