What inspired you to start writing?
I was a police officer for nearly 20 years. In that time, I wrote police reports for any and every type of crime that can be imagined.
I realized early on that I was writing for an audience, a jury, who would most likely never see or experience a crime scene, especially a grisly one. I understood the task. I needed to be as descriptive as possible and utilize words to provide imagery. In that way, I could provide a vivid picture of a scene and articulate why a “bad guy” needed to be put away… or in some cases, the wrongfully accused needed to be set free. I was told by my supervisors, attorneys, and judges that my ability to do this was spectacular, so I decided to develop a passion for that particular skill and see where it would take me.
On a typical day, how much time do you spend writing?
I don’t really pay attention to time. I follow an idea. Sometimes the idea falls right out onto the paper… other times, I struggle to articulate it in a manner that is understandable, so revision is often necessary. If that idea leads me down a train of thought that proves fruitful, or to an interesting thought experiment, I will continue. However, if I find myself struggling to tie things together, or making leaps that are logical fallacies, I will stop and rest my eyes… give myself time to recuperate and rethink a particular idea.
What is the significance of your book’s working title?
Murder, Inc.: A History of America’s Relationship with the Sniper. Murder, Inc. was originally a criminal organization that began in 1929 until it was exposed in 1941. It was the enforcement arm of the National Crime Syndicate and is thought to be responsible for between 400 and 1,000 murders. Around 1968, when the Vietnam War reached its deadliest year, snipers were considered anathema. As such, other troops would refer to them using pejoratives such as “13 Cent Killers” and “Murder, Inc.” American troops reversed and embraced the term “Infidel” during Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. It is my intent to inspire other snipers to do the same with this, and other sniper specific insults.
What do you hope readers take away from this book?
Snipers, by their very nature, are very reserved. Unless their feats are in the realm of the fantastical, i.e. Chris Kyle’s substantial kill count or Rob Furlong’s 1.54- mile engagement, they go largely unnoticed. That is kind of the modus operandi required to be a sniper… Nevertheless, snipers are gifted marksmen from all walks of life and of varying personalities who make impossible decisions and are willing to sacrifice a piece of themselves in order to save lives. Nevertheless, the title “sniper” is used far too liberally to describe both honorable marksmen and deplorable murderers alike. This could be likened to calling someone who goes on a stabbing spree a “surgeon.” My hope is that this text helps readers clearly understand what a true sniper is and know more about their legacy.
What was your inspiration?
When I was nine years old, I watched the movie Sniper starring Tom Berenger and Billy Zane. I immediately knew what I wanted to be when I grew up. Looking back, that particular movie is pretty awful, but I still love it. As an adult, I accomplished my dream of becoming a Sniper and embraced it with both arms. I voraciously learned everything I could about it… dissecting every ounce of information and trying to understand the complicated mathematics and physics involved in a long-distance shot. Eventually, I became adept in the craft and started instructing new snipers. I then went back to school to earn a degree in Military History. Anytime I had my choice of topic to write a paper about, I chose a sniper/marksman from whatever period we were studying. After four years of history courses, I had acquired a plethora of sniper factoids… it was my “party trick,” so to speak. When I decided to write a book, every publisher I spoke to wanted me to write an autobiographical text about my experiences. While my experiences are very important to me, andme and could be considered fantastical in comparison to the everyday person, they pale in comparison to some of the titans whose stories have already been told. Furthermore, telling my story did not accomplish my goal of changing thought paradigms about snipers… if an autobiography were capable of that, Chris Kyle’s American Sniper would have already turned the tide. Defiance Press was the first publisher who cared about the message I wanted to convey… and the care wasn’t canned or manufactured, they really wanted to help me accomplish my goal.
What were the key challenges you faced writing?
Hours and hours and hours of research. I’m not saying that writing a fictional book is easier than non-fiction by any stretch of the imagination, but there were times that I wanted to give up and switch. It was not as easy as googling Googling the term sniper and following the white rabbit, so to speak. Hours of reading individual sniper’s accounts, both well and less well known. Hours of watching videos, listening to recordings, and reading transcripts from the Veteran’s History Project at the Library of Congress. Days were spent pouring over handwritten letters from the 18th and 19th centuries… which, by comparison to the vernacular used today, might as well have been written in a different language. Still, I considered most of that fun. The research was calming to me. Also, it was fun to travel to National and State battlefields and stand where the marksmen of the past stood. Furthermore, I have the honor of calling many of the titans in the sniper world “friend.” Although I frequently speak to many of them, it felt good to interview them in a professional manner so that I could help tell their stories.
Can you share a snippet of Murder, Inc. that isn’t in the blurb?
“A test of the Whitworth in 1853 proved it accurate to 2,000 yards. It is believed that a Whitworth rifle featuring a rudimentary telescopic sight was used by a Confederate sharpshooter to kill Union Major General John Sedgewick at the Battle of Spotsylvania Courthouse at a distance of over 800 yards in May of 1864. General Sedgewick is remembered to history for his infamous last words “they couldn’t hit an elephant at this distance.” General Sedgewick fell from his horse only a moment later, struck in the face by a Confederate bullet.
Does one of the main subjects in Sniper’s Discretion hold a special place in your heart? If so, why?
Certainly! First Sergeant (Ret.) James “Jim” Gilliland. First, James has the longest recorded kill with a 7.62 x 51mm (.308 Cal.) in history at 1,367 yards (1,249 meters.) While deployed to Ramadi, Iraq, James was using a standard issue M-24 Sniper Weapon System, which is a Remington 700 Long-Action featuring a Leupold Mk. 4 10x fixed power scope with a mil-dot reticle… (I explain all that mumbo jumbo in the book.) The U.S. Army states that this rifle is capable of point target accuracy out to 800 meters (roughly 875 yards.) James, after witnessing a friend of his get shot by an enemy sniper, maintained his calm, found the enemy sniper, and engaged him, successfully eliminating him with one round, at over three-quarters of a mile. This shot landed him in the history books as well as a couple of shows on The History Channel. The deficiency of James’ bolt-gun was supplemented by his own expertise, which is a true testament to his character, professionalism, and mastery of his craft. Second, and this one is more important to me, James is my friend. Aside from interviews with him for my book and funny meme’s we send each other from time to time, there has never been a time when I needed him that he wasn’t available. When battling my own demons, he was there. When making significant life changes, he was there. He has never once not answered my call. He is, and always will be, my brother. I am so proud that I can return his acts of friendship by featuring him in my book.
Your text covers a broad time frame. Why did you choose to cover such a large span of history?
Every literary agent and publisher I spoke with prior to Defiance Press told me not to do this. They advised me to completely alter the text and focus on one specific war… World War II for instance. While I could have done so… and I can appreciate a publisher’s priority, which is to sell books, the intended message cannot be adequately conveyed by taking a macro photo of one instant in time. In other words, and at risk of using a tired idiom… I don’t want the reader to lose the forest for the trees. The purpose of the text is twofold. Of course I want to sell books, and I believe that recounting the heroic deeds of incredible snipers will do that. Nevertheless, I also want to articulate the bigger picture and outline how the United States Military has, with extreme precision and accuracy, shot itself in the foot over and over and over again… and maybe, if the right person is paying attention, bring that cycle to a permanent end.
What is the most surprising thing you discovered while writing Sniper’s Discretion?
That June 14, 1775, was not intended to be the birth of the American Army. The particular entry in the Journals of the Second Continental Congress that the U.S. Army cites as its charter document does suffice for that outcome, however, logically speaking, when evaluating all of the evidence… that particular entry was designed to create something else altogether… something the world had, up to that point, never seen.
If you could cure one disease, what would it be?
Easy. Cancer… in all of its forms… in humans, pets, and anything else that one might develop a relationship with.
Sniper’s Discretion: Unveiling America’s Sharpshooter History
PROLOGUE
The history of the American marksman is a complicated adventure. Even the terms used to distinguish marksmen can be confusing. The words “marksman,” “sharpshooter,” and “sniper” are seemingly used interchangeably and even among marksmen, the distinctions are not quite clear. From the moment that settlers first stepped foot onto the “New World,” they had their work cut out for them.
Agriculture was far from what it would become; thus the first settlers relied upon hunting and trade for survival. The firearm proved valuable for both ventures. It was valuable for hunting, for obvious reasons, but it was also valuable for trade with, and in many instances, protection against the various tribes and nations of Native Americans. By the end of the eighteenth century, colonial Americans would utilize it to prosecute a war of independence.
Technological advancements during this time frame would create a new type of firearm, the rifle, which would change the face of warfare. It increased the effective range of a fired projectile from 50 yards up to 300 yards, a 500 percent increase. By the mid-nineteenth century, further technological advancements, to include percussion cap ignition systems, aerodynamically superior projectiles, and the later development of metallic cartridge ammunition, combined with antiquated European warfare doctrines, resulted in the Civil War, the deadliest war Americans ever fought.
Nevertheless, it also produced a gifted class of marksmen, who were able to take shots at, and sometimes exceed, 1,000 yards. This was an astonishing feat even by modern standards. These gifted marksmen, previously known as “riflemen,” were given the title of “sharpshooter.” Outside of warfare, this inevitably resulted in contests of skill whereby marksmen demonstrated their prowess with the rifle to gathered spectators and/or had their feats celebrated and published in the newspapers. Contests of this nature still take place at present in the form of Palma matches, F-Class rifle matches, National Rifle League matches, and the Precision Rifle Series to name a few.
By the beginning of the twentieth century, the marksmanship skillset remained the same. Within the military, however, telescopic optics, field craft training, and observation skills were added. Their title, thanks to their British allies, was changed to “sniper.” It would seem as though no nation since has so completely endorsed that which could be considered a martial skill. However, this is simply not the case. While competitive feats of precision marksmanship are celebrated, the sharpshooter/sniper has, until recently, been condemned within American culture. Even the word “sniper” is used liberally to describe an individual who commits murder via use of any rifle at any distance. The truth, unfortunately, is that throughout American military history, the United States has abandoned its sharpshooter/sniper programs after each major conflict up to, and including, the Vietnam War. While many historians acknowledge this, few speculate as to why these programs were abandoned, and none addressed the long-term implications it would have on military preparedness.
This research seeks to shed light on this dilemma via an in-depth look at sharpshooters/snipers and the programs with which they were affiliated in each of these major conflicts in American military history. Suffice it to say, whether one is comforted by the idea or finds it to be anathema, American culture is inextricably tied to the rifle, and by extension, the marksmen who wield them.
PART 1
Early American Warfare
“When shoes and clothes and food, when hope is gone we’ll all have the rifle”
– J Sohn Steinbeck‑, The Grapes of Wrath
Chapter One
The American Revolution
Many, when considering the American War of Independence, otherwise known as the American Revolution, imagine non-uniformed, untrained minute men firing muskets at red clad British regulars from behind rocks, trees, and bushes. This characterization is iconic and, to many Americans-Heroic. Unfortunately, it is also largely myth. That is not to say that this type of guerrilla tactic did not occur; however, the vast majority of battles took place utilizing the traditional European warfare doctrine, whereby troops stood in rank and marched towards one another until within musket range. Upon halting, the combatants would exchange volleys of musket fire. If one of the phalanx formations showed signs of breaking, a bayonet charge would ensue to force a rout and the army that occupied the field when the fighting ceased was declared the victor. This begs, the question, “Where did this myth of firing from behind rocks and trees come from?”
In 1775, when the first battles of the American Revolution began, rifles found their way onto the battlefield. Although traditional European methods of linear warfare dictated that smoothbore muskets fitted with a bayonet were the weapon of choice for war, the Continental Congress had made a provision within the June 4, 1775 act that raised the Continental Army. The provision stated “six companies of expert riflemen [sic], be immediately raised in Pennsylvania [sic], two in Maryland, and two in Virginia…” Before one can understand how significant this provision of the Continental Congress was, a distinction must be drawn between the rifle and its predecessor, the smooth-bore musket. The word “rifle” was not used interchangeably with the word “musket.” The smooth-bore musket, as the name entails, possessed a barrel with a smooth interior, or bore.
When a projectile was fired from the musket, it left the muzzle somewhat haphazardly. This limited the effective range of a smooth-bore musket to roughly 50 yards. In contrast, the rifled musket, or “rifle,” possessed a bore that featured lands and grooves, or “rifling,” that ran the length of the bore in a spiraled pattern. When a projectile was fired from the rifle, it left the muzzle with a spin that created gyroscopic stabilization in flight. This stabilized flight allowed the spherical lead balls to be accurate to approximately 300 yards. Furthermore, a standing army was not referred to as “riflemen,” let alone “expert riflemen,” it was called an army. Thus, it stands to reason that the Continental Congress chose its phrasing carefully. They wanted ten companies of expert riflemen, or 800 soldiers capable of engaging enemy soldiers at distances beyond the range of a musket. The United States Army of today credits this provision with the birth of the American Army. Although this provision does suffice in this capacity, it could, however, be argued that the creation of the U.S. Army was, in fact, the creation of the world’s first elite military sharpshooters. The next paragraph in the act states that these companies of expert riflemen “shall march and join the army near Boston, to be there employed as light infantry…” This leads one to believe that a standing army of infantry already existed and that the Congress was establishing these riflemen to supplement the ranks. Although the army near Boston was comprised of militia, and the Congress was, in effect, creating the first federal fighting force, the language used was quite particular. As opposed to establishing a continental army, the delegates chose instead to create an army of expert riflemen. Indeed, they were to be the first force multiplier echelon in American military history. This is further corroborated by John Adams in a letter to Elbridge Gerry, who at the time was serving in Massachusetts House of Representatives and would later serve in many other political roles, to include Vice President. The letter, dated June 18, 1775, reads:
“…ten companies of riflemen be sent immediately; six from Pennsylvania, two from Maryland, and two from Virginia, consisting of sixty-eight privates in each company, to join our army at Boston. These are said to be all exquisite marksmen, and by means of the excellence of their firelocks, as well as their skill in the use of them, to send sure destruction to great distances.”
This is a bold, if not…a provocative, claim indeed. Nevertheless, when conducting an investigation, one must follow the evidence despite the outcome. The Battle of Bunker Hill began three days after this resolution was passed. It could be argued that these congressmen saw that the fledgling nation was standing at the precipice of war with the most powerful empire the world has ever seen and recognized that a relatively small force of men, equipped with technologically advanced weapons, could turn the tide of battles. Simply stated, they needed force multipliers. It proved to be exactly what the colonies needed at exactly the right time. This was not by accident. The importance of a written record cannot be overstated. After all, why did the nation’s founders decide to create a document, albeit brief, on their discussions with one another? Perhaps it was to establish a written account of representation… an effort to protect the rights of the people that had been trounced upon by the British crown, or maybe it was foresight… manuscripts created for posterity, so to speak. These reasons may be partially true; however, the less elegant, and far more likely answer is that they needed a method by which to remember the myriad of issues that were addressing and the methods by which they solved problems. Insofar as rights are concerned, keep in mind that the Declaration of Independence would not be penned for another year, and the Constitution would not even be considered for another decade. Despite the justification for keeping the record, language was used far more carefully then than it is now. A written message, at that time, carried with it far more weight and value than it does today. At that time, errors in written language were not acceptable. The misuse or misunderstanding of vocabulary could have brought with it demise of what would become the United States of America.
In this case, the most important piece of evidence boils down to two words, “expert riflemen.” The argument might be made that the Congress was speaking in generalities; however, that would not have been the case. Although the word “rifle” is commonly used today, in 1775, a rifle was a state-of-the-art advancement in firearms technology and was absolutely incongruent with the European, Napoleonic, linear warfare doctrine-the accepted method of warfare during that era. In addition to this, troops were not referred to as riflemen. Then, similar to now, troops en masse were referred to as troops, soldiers, regulars, militia, and armies. Why then, in one singular document, would the Continental Congress refer to this particular group of standard soldiers as riflemen? The simple answer is they would not, nor did they. They documented exactly that which they desired -namely, men who were skilled with a firearm that outmatched the musket in accuracy. Unfortunately, the transcription in the journal is brief. The entirety of the day’s events makes up only two pages of the journal, thus exactly what was discussed and stated will almost certainly never be fully known. Indeed, the only true clarification is contained in Adam’s letter to Gerry where he notes the soldier’s expertise and the “great distance” at which the troops will be effective.
