away) every night — strafing one of our roads by which our supply trains and the ambulances came up. However, we finally got a chance to shoot them up a biton our own account, as mentioned elsewhere in this story.
I sometimes took a shot at men around that Hiele Farm place while sniping, but we had no observations which would prove that we ever made any hits. While it was only about 800 yards from our front line it was at least 1200 yards from our sniping and observation post. My judgment, based upon experience, is that it is futile to attempt any sniping at such ranges. Up to 1000 yards a man
Since the war I have met a great many expert shots in our own country, and in talking with these and other shooting authorities in the United States I find an opinion prevailing that the specialized sniping rifle need only be a single-shot action; that there will seldom be any need for rapid fire on the part of the sniper, and that it is unnecessary to have the magazine on such rifles in working order as it will never be used anyhow. My experience in actual sniping has been just the opposite from these contentions.
Frequently, even in trench warfare, the opportunity will arise for three or four rapidly fired shots to be poured into a target. In two or three instances throughout this book I have described how the opportunity was offered me to shoot up a working party, and at fairly close range too, who thought themselves well concealed from sight. At my first shot into the target, which may or may not have been a hit, the entire bunch simply boiled out of there and fell all over one another in the attempt to get away. When an opportunity such as this is presented, the sniper can always get in two or three more quick shots, provided the rifle he is using can be reloaded by manipulating the bolt and it is not necessary to grope around and load the other cartridges by hand.
To me, it is ridiculous to think of using the rifle only as a single shot, and one of the reasons why I liked the Warner and Swasey and similar off-side mounts was that with it you could always use the cartridges in the magazine as in rapid fire, and not have the ejecting shell jam the gun. With the scope mounted on top of the action this may be impossible and such rifles can be used for only one shot; by the time you have placed another cartridge in the barrel by hand your target will have disappeared.
Quite often the sniper will have an opportunity to put off two or three quick shots at a target. Occasionally you will catch a man out in the open and can shoot several times as he runs to the nearest cover. Or a shell may destroy the cover or protection of a gun crew, working party, or machine-gun nest, and start several men running for shelter. On occasions like this, a magazine full of cartridges is a great thing to have available and may be the means of piling up three or four dead enemies. Such opportunities will long be remembered.
The big help in being able to load from the magazine on such occasions, is not only the greater rapidity of fire, but is also the fact that you do not have to take your eyes off the target while reloading the rifle. That’s a real advantage, I can tell you. You very likely are firing through a small loop-hole, or from some concealed location, and must remain in a decidedly circumscribed position to be able to see anything at all — once you move your face away from the gun stock, or change position in the least, your entire “shootable” field of fire may be gone. It takes a second or two to again pick up the target, and seconds are most precious at such times.
After you have lain in a sniping nest or been at a loop-hole most of the day — possibly several days — straining your eyes for something to shoot at, it is most satisfying to be able to do some real shooting if the occasion
Our telescope sights were mounted on the left hand side, in such a manner as not to interfere with either the operation of loading from the charger or the manipulation of the bolt and the ejecting of the fired cases. Furthermore, they did not interfere with the use of the iron sights, and this was another great advantage. I always tried to check up both sets of sights every day so as to have it possible to shoot with either the ’scope or iron sights at a second’s notice. This was easy as we always had plenty of “sighting-in” targets in the bits of brick wall, or the numerous water-filled shell holes, at known ranges behind the enemy lines. The observer could almost always pick up the strike of the bullet, whether it hit the point aimed at or in the mud alongside.
It pays to have one set of sights on the rifle that you know are going to “stay put” and it also pays to have them ready for use at an instant’s notice. I remember one morning, when my very first shot was made as soon as we got into position in Sniper’s Bam, it was under very hard conditions of light and background, and was at a soldier who was standing up behind the German lines some six hundred yards from our position. There was no time whatever for sighting-in shots; I just cut loose and put him down cold. Another time I got a similar shot at an officer who was standing up right behind their parados with his back up against a tree and probably thinking himself invisible; my first shot for the day dropped him also. This chap was a Marine officer, we could see this clearly through the big telescope, and I got a lot of satisfaction out of that shot because for general cussedness those Marines had it all over anything else in the German organization, even Bavarians and Prussians, which is saying a lot.
I have never heard a good word for that Warner & Swasey telescopic sight, but I am going to put in one, right now. Having had considerable experience with all the various “breeds” that had been turned out up to that time, including the Winchester 5-A, I found that this same W. & S. was as dependable as any of them and a whole lot better than most. I had to tinker up the mounting a bit to keep it from jarring loose; on my particular rifle I rusted all the screws in and spiked them with a center punch, then by ramming a thin wedge or “shim” (made from a safety razor blade) in between the sight base and its holding lug, I finally got it on so tightly I could not get it off. This “anchored” it properly and the sight thereafter worked all right. We all know that the ’scope sights of that date were crude as compared with the later types, but I do not believe that any better one had been constructed then unless it was some that the Germans were using. They had some good ones, make no mistake about that. The Winchester 5-A was about the best one available in the United States then, and anyone who had much experience with them up to and including 1918 can testify that they could and did “act up” something scandalous at times.
If the light was right, I would use the ’scope sight; if not, the iron ones. The service sights on the Ross rifle were so good that, by using the large aperture, one could see plenty of the territory in the vicinity of the target — a very important point, as the “targets” in such cases were usually nothing more than small round caps — about the size of a small dinner plate and always of some indistinct, neutral color. The telescope sight is not always better than the iron ones, as everyone knows. Never as good in a fog, and sometimes even on bright days when there is a heavy mirage. The ’scope exaggerates everything, including the ground haze and the distortion of the target by the mirage. Those of you who have fired over the 1000 yard range at Camp Perry know how hazy and “wavy” that big bull’s-eye can get in a bad “boil,” yet that bull is some ten feet above the surface of the ground. Think how much worse it can be when your target is right on the ground and of a color which blends in with it. Everything is so distorted that it is impossible to define your target from its surroundings, and under such conditions your iron sights are much better than the telescope. But in the average light, and especially early on some mornings and late in the evenings the telescope is all to the good.
That is one thing I have been harping on, ever since the war: this matter of sights. Most of my criticism has been directed at the Springfield. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why, in a country that has developed some of the finest types of aperture sights for use on sporting rifles, we cannot have an equally good one on the military rifle. I wouldn’t care if they put on nothing but a “battle sight” — built right into the top of the receiver bridge — so long as it had a big hole in it and was close to the eye. That, with a reasonably broad front sight would be perfectly satisfactory for battle use. For accurate shooting at ranges beyond about three hundred yards, of course the sight should be adjustable for both elevation and windage but, aside from the sniper, the soldier seldom sees an enemy at anything beyond what might be termed “hunting” range and our deer hunters well know what that is.
The Germans always had much better constructed trenches than we had. The Canadian soldier hated anything like ordinary manual labor and would put up with a lot of discomfort rather than put in a few hours with a shovel. Consequently, we had but few decent sniping positions in the front line while the enemy had many very ingeniously constructed loop-holes through which to fire. They nearly always made use of some one of the numerous and miscellaneous articles which always decorated the front of his parapet — put there, I always
