How would a good hunter compare to a military sniper?

[ClintBarton]

Hi,

Whenever gun control or second amendment issues are discussed, I'm always a little bit staggered when I try to imagine just how many guns could conceivably sprout into the hands of ordinary citizens given just cause. (Ground invasion or whatnot.)Recently, I've found myself wondering whether this would actually be useful in a military situation, or maybe only serve as a deterrent to would-be invaders. Even if we couldn't inflict any real losses on invading troops, it sure would suck for them trying to move around with a pissed-off US Citizen armed with a hunting rifle taking pop shots at them at every turn.Now, I'm fairly ignorant in regards both to hunting and to military weapons. I've shot a handful of different handguns with various relatives, but I've never been hunting and my military experience was limited to the 1911, M-14, and 12 gauge shotgun.But I have to wonder: How many hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people hunt deer and similar game every year? With their weapons and skills (presuming a fair number of them have a high level of proficiency), don't we have a country full of home-grown snipers? Wouldn't a good hunter be a fairly formidable sniper? I figure hunting rifles are accurate at a reasonably long range, they are scoped, and a good hunter is patient, knows a bit about camoflage, and is somewhat proficient at blending in with his surroundings.What do you all think?

Please help.

I didn't find the right solution from the Internet.

References:-
https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewto...?f=24&t=902881
Product Video Service

Thanks!

[jjrothWA]

You have basic experience with reading sign, using cover and placing a single shot.

Early snipers from were those that had theses skills and necessity of war expanded their use.

[Herschel]

Here is how I would rank the effectiveness of the individual rifleman.

1st Place goes to a trained military sniper. Reason, ideal equipment, much practice and experience.
2nd Place goes to the hunter. Reason, experience with cover and concealment. Deficiency would be that the average hunter shoots very few shots in a year.
3rd Place goes to the average infantryman. Our military services pay very little attention to marksmanship training.

My opinion is based on a lifetime of hunting and 25 years of being involved in military marksmanship training and competition.

[bruce]

If the comparison is to be realistic, compare a sniper to a skilled practiced hunter ... one who hunts seriously rather than the once a year blaster. When it comes to basic skills, they would likely be about equal. As to hitting targets at various ranges, each man working with equipment he knew well, there would not likely be a great deal of difference in hits. On significant difference would be in actually shooting a man. Beyond merely talking about it, actually shooting and killing a man would likely be a problem for anyone who had not been trained for such a job. Shooting a paper target or metal plate is one thing. Shooting and killing a human being is very much something else entirely. JMHO. sincerely. bruce.

[JOHN COOK]

I didn't find the right solution from the Internet.

Member one day and asking for a right solution ??? Sight he posted had plenty of answers.

john

[barretcreek]

Every season at our range we host 400 to 600 hunters to sight in their weapons. A good portion of them would fall in the 'once a year' category. They have a hard time hitting the target.
Just like a sniper team, our set up has a shooter and a spotter. That's a good way to start getting first shot on the point of aim. After a shooter is used to working with a spotter then they start getting hits by themselves.
Against an invading force, say cartel soldiers coming over the border in squad size groups defenders would do well. Familiarity with the terrain, a willingness to protect our territory, and the ability to get help and relief. It would depend on how much support the invaders had from 'our' gov't forces.