Game of Snipers (Bob Lee Swagger)

I just finished Game Of Snipers from Stephen Hunter and I found it quite good and almost a page turner in the last chapter. Mr. Hunter is a fine writer, with a flair for twists and misdirection; I like that in a novel.I would have enjoyed the novel even more if there were not so many glaring mistakes with respect to most everything written about firearms and their use in long range shooting. It’s as if Mr. Hunter has some rudimentary knowledge of a few things and he then tries to pass off this minimal knowledge as deep expertise. It messes up an otherwise very entertaining yarn. In this review, I just want to discuss the final duel between snipers as told in the book.In the preparations for the long 1847 yard shot coming up, Mr. Hunter describes the riflescope as a Schmidt & Bender 5.5X25X56. No one who knows anything about optics would consistently refer to that riflescope has a 5.5X25X56. The proper name is 5-25X56. This denotes a variable magnification scope with a base magnification of 5X and a maximum of 25X with an objective lens of 56mm in diameter. There is no S&B 5.5-25X56, but there are a couple of 5-25X56 and they are highly thought of by the military. For the long range described in the book, I would think that the shooter would want greater magnification, so the S&B 12-50X56 might be more appropriate, if one is fixated on S&B. There are better, more powerful scopes from other manufacturers, but the S&B 12-50X56 would be just fine.The S&B 5-25X56 has an elevation adjustment range of +/-32MOA, and a windage adjustment range of +/-17MOA. How the sniper was able to set 48MOA up and 24MOA of windage in this scope is beyond me.The .338 LM with a .338 250gr Sierra HPBT at 3000FPS requires about 80MOA of elevation to get to 1850 yards according to JBM Ballistics. Since the scope only had 32MOA of internal travel, the scope would have to be mounted on an inclined ramp of at least 50MOA and even with that, the scope would be topped out and there would be no room for the specified 24MOA of windage; in fact you probably would not have more than a couple MOA of windage available. A displacement of 24MOA at 1850 yards represents 38 FEET to one side or the other. JBM shows that for that kind of displacement, there would have to be a 15MPH wind at full value, yet the book describes the actual conditions as quite calm, with a wind about 3-4MPH. JBM shows that a 4mph full value wind would need 7.5MOA of windage; that still represents a displacement of 12 FEET. A 3mph wind full value needs 6.1MOA or 9.75 FEET. As you can see a difference of 1MPH represents 2.25 feet at the target. I’m fairly well trained in wind speeds estimation and there is no way I can make that distinction. And that is a steady wind all along the trajectory, for the 3.4 second flight time. Yeah sorry, it’s not 5 seconds. And the energy at the target is 538 ft-lbs, not the 1000 as described in the book.But let’s leave aside the windage issue for the moment, even though that is the biggest variable factor in long range shooting, and let’s talk more about bullet drop. In a scoped rifle, the riflescope always has a direct (aptly-named) line of sight to the target. What varies with the distance is the angle of elevation of the barrel to match the distance to the target. As I mentioned earlier, the .338LM with a 250gr SMK HPBT at 3000FPS will need 80 MOA of elevation for 1850 yards. 80MOA at 1850 yards is 1554 inches, 130 feet from a 100 yard zero.Put another way, if the riflescope is zeroed to 1850 yards, at 100 yards the bullet will be 84 inches above the line of sight. That’s 7 feet above LOS at 100 yards and the bullet is climbing fast. In fact, the apex of the trajectory will occur at about 1100 yards and the bullet will be 594 inches above LOS. That’s about 50FEET high.Now in the final duel, the jihadi sniper is focused on his target 1847 yards away and if about to take the shot, when the helicopter drops into his LOS, so that he sees it in the scope. Our hero Swagger, is on the floor of the helicopter with the 6.5CM Remington 700 the jihadi sniper had used to kill someone at 300 yards. One would guess that Swagger instructed the pilot to drop into the view at about 300 yards from the jihadi sniper as there was no time to figure any different range, but that is not mentioned in the book. Swagger just says "middle of the Anacostia River." On a map, one can see that the golf course is in the middle of the Potomac River, and on the east side, the Anacostia branches off. The Anacostia River is not very wide, about 300 yard, but since we are looking at an 1847 yard shot, the building where Juba is hiding will be further northeast on the east side of the river and the Anacostia is a lot wider at the National War College. So, in the “middle of the river”, in an 1847 yard line between the building and the green, with the National War College on the scene, that should be about 300 yards from Juba.Neill was insistent that the rifle had not be touched or adjusted in any way from the time when they found it at the scene. So 300 yards is what we are going to play with because it makes sense for what Swagger is attempting to do and it fits the map.When the jihadi realizes that a helicopter bearing sniper gifts is blocking his view, he adjusts the focus and then he places the illuminated dot on the figure that he recognized as the sniper.We already know that at 100 yards, the bullet would be 7 feet above point of aim and climbing. What would it be at 300 yards? Well, the answer is 20 FEET. So when Juba fired at the helicopter and Swagger, the bullet would have passed 20 feet above his point of aim, clear above the helicopter, which is 16feet high, from bottom of the wheels to the top of the tail rotor blades. The bullet would have landed on the putting green, 1847 yards away, not in Swagger. The safest place to be in fact, was in the helicopter 300 yards away; with the riflescope used in the story, set up on a 50+MOA canted rail, there was no way the jihadi sniper could hit the helicopter at 300 yards in the few seconds of the final duel.Therefore, instead of the lame end of the story where Swagger gets hit by a bullet with 3600+fl/lbs of energy and lives to tell the tale, we could have had an exciting and technically accurate final duel.Inside the helicopter as they are speeding to the scene, Swagger explains they need to get the helicopter positioned about 300 yards (3 football field lengths) from the window since the Remington 700 6.5CM, its ammo, and the scope are set for that distance. The pilot and other occupants are afraid of being in the line of fire at that point and that they are about to sacrifice themselves to save an ex-president. Swagger quickly explains:“Folks, don’t worry about that. Juba’s entire mindset is about the 1847 yard shot; the rifle is setup for that shot, not for a 300 yard chip shot. When he sees us in his scope, we will be blurred but distinguishable. His instinct at that point will be to put the reticle on us and fire. At 300 yards, his shot will go over us completely. I’ll end his career of terror before he even realizes that he totally missed us. Now, even if he was able to realize that we are so much closer before he takes the shot, he will not be able to make any adjustments with the scope to come anywhere close to us. He would have to shoot maybe 15-20 feet under us and that’s out of view of the scope. Because the field of view of that scope is only 12 feet at 300 yards, meaning that above the center dot, there is only 6 feet of view. So holding 15-20 feet under is going to be very hard and I won’t give him the time to figure all that out. When he sees us, he’ll fire right away aiming straight at us; that’s his whole mindset right now. I won’t give him the time for a follow up shot.”“Hey Swagger, where’s his bullet going to go? Onto the green?”“Yeah, good point, let push down a little bit so the round will fall short of the green. It doesn’t take much, a foot or two and the bullet will fall way short of the green. Let’s just make sure I can see him.”… (describe the event).“When I fired at him, I saw the look of realization on his face. Just before my bullet reached him, he knew he had made a mistake, a fatal mistake.”I’m sure Mr. Harper would have made it much more exciting.

Up front: it's a Real slowburn? Doesn't set the hook as quick as most Swagger adventures. Once I swam through a competition of back story and meticulous gun-craft detail, I realized he had me lock, stock & loaded! Terrific fourth act! Luv me some Stephen Hunter!!

I am not a gun nut. I would never own one. But I find these stories compelling and entertaining. I like the characters and I can feel their emotions. This is another one for the can't put it down list.

Stephen Hunter's new novel, GAME OF SNIPERS, is among his very best, but one of its elements is pushed to the farthest reaches yet: the detailed discussion/description/dilation on the technical aspects of arms, ammunition and shooting techniques. Given the subject, this should not come as a surprise, but this element is so dominant that it is fair to describe the book as more of a procedural than his previous offerings.The story concerns a gold-star mother who has lost her beloved son to a sniper's bullet. This woman asks Bob to help find the person who did this and offers her personal help whenever and wherever possible (coming in at one particularly memorable plot point). Bob is up for the hunt, of course, and he is aided by the FBI, some local authorities and (in delightful ways) by the Mossad.In hunting for "Juba the sniper" Bob (and Juba) crisscross the country, for Juba is 'on assignment' and his target is one of the principal mysteries in the story. Juba is aided by a whole host of baddies, by the Iranians (in general) and by the leader of a Mexican drug cartel (in specific ways). The latter is over-the-top nasty but he will have to conjure with Juba's many skills when they begin to work at cross purposes.The bottom line is that the settings are nicely realized, the characters are engaging and memorable and the story line is excellent (though there are moments that stretch credulity and plausibility). The chief issue is the degree of technical detail. Thus, it all comes down to reader type.If you are type A, you are as fascinated by weaponry and technique as Stephen Hunter and you will read and re-read this book, giving it a seven or eight on a scale of 1-5.If you are type B, you will not understand very much of what Stephen Hunter is talking about, but you will take it on faith that he is being accurate and you will see the technical details as anchoring the book's 'realism'—an essential element in crime fiction. Even though the technical detail will strike you as excessive you will marvel at Stephen Hunter's knowledge and still enjoy the story. You will give it 4 and a half stars. (Admission: I am a type B here.)If you are type C you came to the novel qua novel; you wanted the unvarnished story without too many distractions. You will be disappointed by the level of technical detail and consider it a significant detriment. You will consider GAME OF SNIPERS one of the author's lesser efforts. You might even stop reading before finishing it.Bottom line: let the potential buyer beware or glow with anticipation.

I feel like I've aged along with Swagger...72 + years old and still kicking butt! As I'm used to saga length novels, I was disappointed that the book ended so soon. I would have liked more backstory on the enemy and his growth to be a sniper counted amongst the best on the world; I would have liked more story behind the woman who brought him down. Still, it was a good yarn.

i go tit to li and find knowledge for shooting to the story and te further history of bob lee nd the suspence to find who is the better person in the game

Stephen Hunter is a must author to read. I've read all of his books and I am looking forward to his next one(s).

I bought this as a gift, the recipient told me that it's a great read!

The final bad guy shot was improbable.

Good read