Talk:Rob Furlong

Subsequent military investigation

I saw a documentary on this guy and other Canadian snipers in Afghanistan.

I think the subsequent military investigation into conduct of Canadian snipers should be mentioned in this article, as they relate to his reasons for leaving the military.

I think this is worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.197.117 (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation?

I suggest too much in this story is being taken at face value and that the idea of "confirmation" must be questioned in two regards.

1) At the extreme range of almost 2.5 kilometers, it is not possible to 'confirm' visually that the target was killed. He may have been wounded. He may have been missed entirely and either dropped out of sight behind a boulder or played possum. The fact is that sniper teams operating at these ranges do not have the opportunity and do not in fact moved forward to check their targets. Even with the spotter's scope - which is not identified - determining definitively the health of a target at almost 2.5 kilometers on a boulder strewn mountainside borders on the magical. The additional claim that at almost 2.5 kilometers, the spotter could tell the bag was hit by the second shot should raise questions by itself.

2) Range. How was the range measured? This is not identified, even though it is the key aspect of this supposed record breaking shot. Was it by map inspection? Anyone with any experience with maps at altitude in mountainous terrain knows that ranging errors of up to 20% are common even among well trained forward observers. Was it by laser rangefinder? At almost 2.5 kilometers, a handheld laser rangefinder's beam plays all over the background, creating a significant variation in readings.

As there is no organization that tracks and verifies notable sniper shots, we have only the word of the participants for the details. This alone dictates that the article take a much more conditional, if not skeptical, tone. Since the two key aspects of the shot - the target's death and the range - totally lack details on how they were confirmed, and lack corroborating evidence, the whole issue of longest shot is merely one of claim and conjecture.

Suggest the article be rewritten so that it faithful and respectfully convey's Furlong's claims, but notes the realistic problems with confirmation and the fact that there is no way to realistically adjudicate between various claims as they all depend on battlefield observation rather than concrete measurements.

76.125.60.188 (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Explanation for dispute tag: Hathcock still holds record

This article is in error by crediting Furlong with the longest sniper kill in history.

That record still belongs to the late Gunnery Sgt. Carlos Hathcock, USMC. Hathcock made his kill at some two yards, or 1.39 meters, further than Furlong.

I've added a dispute tag to the relevant section and noted the discrepancies in the figures given for the Canadian corporal and the American gunnery sergeant.

The anonymous user, 76.125.60.188, probably has a point. When talking about distances of 1.5 miles, a yard or two is going to be very difficult to measure--especially in the chaos of a combat situation. What if the target stumbles forward several feet from where he was fatally hit? What if the target tumbles backward--particularly in the case of being hit with the Barrett Firearms M82A1's .50 caliber beast of a round (used by the US Army and Marines)? Or if the body is moved by his fellow soldiers or, in the case of Furlong, al-Qaeda terrorists? (Though, given their disregard for life and common decency this is incredibly unlikely.)

Until accurate laser range finders (or similar technology) are miniaturized--and made tough enough!--enough to give us exact data, a certain amount of guess work (Gil Grissom wherefore art thou?) will be part of determining sniper kills over such huge distances.

Note: changed the term "militant" for the far more accurate term terrorist. After all, a radical feminist can be labelled a militant while she is clearly not a terrorist. Whereas all members of al-Qaeda are terrorists, none militants.

Let's not adopt the lamestream media's gutlessness when it comes to language. It be what it be. And it ain't what it ain't.

PainMan (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey PainMan, why the assertion in your opening line ? Seems to strongly indicate a bias.

How was Hathcock's kill distance confirmed beyong reasonable doubt ? You would think more modern measuring techniques would give an over all more accurate measure of distance wouldnt you ? So come on, explain why you are asserting that Furlongs kill distance is in error please and Hathcock's ( all of approx 35 pre dating ) isnt.....

P.s. I have no account but will set one up very soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.131.177 (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal bias in previous comments. Furlong holds the record.

The the 2nd and in particular, 3rd comments here, are obviously loaded with personal bias. Furlong holds the record, plain and simple. Anyone can postulate conjecture wrapped-up in pseudo-science in an attempt to cast doubt and project their personal opinion over established fact.

Hathcock's record had never been in dispute as to the range, that is until the Canadian snipers broke the record in 2002. Quoting information from a book published in 2005 which "revises" Hathcock's shot to be "just beyond" the range of Rob Furlong's record, casts a heavy cloud of doubt and suspicion over the legitimacy of information contained in said book. Hathcock himself never claimed a farther distance than what had been established in 1967 when he fired the shot. Since he is no longer around to add more information, biased conjecture from a book published after his death, and notably after the Canadian snipers broke the record, is based therefore solely on the opinion of the author and should not be regarded as fact and the definitive word. If that were the case, any of us could undertake a similar mission and publish a book with "new facts" that showed Furlong's shot was in fact, longer the the "2005 revised shot" of Hathcock's. Can we see the slippery slope this would take us all down.

Furlong and the other snipers received Bronze Stars from the US for their work in Afghanistan in long-range sniper combat operations. The US Army's 10th Mountain Division specifically requested to the Canadian Government, snipers of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (CPPLI) to accompany them into the mountains of Afghanistan, as the Canadian snipers of this regiment are reknowned for their long-range prowess. The Canadian snipers are widely considered, in fact, to be the best in the world. These men are specifically selected and trained by the Canadian army at their top-notch sniper school in Camp Gagetown, New Brunswick, Canada.

Furlong holds the official record for longest recorded sniper kill. It is fact and not in dispute by either the US or Canadian military. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomahawk 151 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Tossing out accusations of personal bias does not compensate for the errors in your post. Let's keep to the facts, shall we?

There is no "official record" due to the simple fact that there is no official organization to regulate, confirm, establish and bestow such records. None. Neither Hathcock nor Furlong's feats have been substantiated by sworn statements of witnesses, documentation in after action reports, review by independent 'credit boards' or anything else. And there certainly is no organization that is empowered to perform such functions across (and into) individual national armies. As a result, all you have are poorly documented claims by individuals.

Stating that Furlong's - or anyone's - shot is 'confirmed' is completely untrue and misleading unless you can document who confirmed it and how. No one has been able to do so regarding Furlong's shot. No matter how often the 'confirmed' word is carelessly thrown around, it won't make it true until the supporting evidence is presented. Which has not occurred to date.

To say that it is "not in dispute" is not at all the same as saying that either of those organizations have affirmed that record. The US military takes no official stand on this topic. It has no regulations governing award of 'kill credits' to snipers. There are no 'sniper credit review boards.' There are no provisions for sniper 'ace-dom' as there is for fighter pilots. These 'claimed' kill tallies are not entered in personnel files or any other official permanent military files except - maybe - at local level. These tallies are not forwarded to a central database or office of proponency for review and confirmation. I suspect that the same goes for the Canadian armed forces. I've looked long and hard for any official pronouncement from either organization that they either confirmed the details of Furlong's shot (or Hathcock's, for that matter), or consider either of those shots to be definitively the world record. (Well, the Marines love to brag about Hathcock, but that's puffery, not the official results of a duly constituted board of investigation.) That's not their business. We're looking for affirmative proof to constitute real confirmation. An absence of dispute from organizations that don't keep official records on this topic in the first place, does not constitue confirmation. If you have definitive, official documentation detailing how these feats were confirmed and who -specifically - made these confirmations, I'd love to see it. Seriously. This has been missing for 8 years in Furlong's case, and 40 years in Hathcock's.

25 other Canadians received the Bronze Star in the same Government House statement (http://www.gazette.gc.ca/archives/p1/2003/2003-11-08/html/gh-rg-eng.html). This is not proof of Furlong's feat, nor proof that the US has endorsed or confirmed it. Bronze Stars are a vey common award to allies serving with US forces. It's not even certain if Furlong's Bronze Star was for meritorious service or for valor (the reports conflict - anybody have the actual text of the Citation?). Too many people are reading way, way too much into common events. Nothing in this can possibly be construed to prove Furlong's shot happened as claimed.

I could care less whether a Canadian or American holds an unprovable 'record.' It's a totally silly point to get worked up over. Frankly, Hathcok's feat is open to even greater question - only one unnamed bystander supposedly witnessed it; no one even knows who that was and no statement from him has ever surfaced. Neither Furlong nor Hathcok's shots were confirmed in any real sense of the word. Both were excellent snipers; beyond that, the record-setting claims cannot be substantiated.

Which is why touting these 'records' on Wikipedia is little more than perpetuating mythology.

This Wiki entry at least needs to note the questions ragarding how these kill credits are 'confirmed.' It goes, after all, directly to the heart of the question as to whether such a record actually was set.

76.125.60.137 (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Point may be moot, record broken by Brit? Sniper Craig HarrisonEbrockway (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

New Record And with a smaller calibre...jeeze. Twobells (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Seems the kills were a consecutive double [shakes head] Twobells (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Urination

Do not remove the information regarding him urinating on a colleague. It is from a reliable source. Myopia123 (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)