Does anyone know of an online source for FM 3-05.222 SPECIAL FORCES SNIPER TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT, 25 APR 2003? The Army Doctrine and Training Digital Library (www.adtdl.army.mil) has it but, despite the fact that it's unclassified, the file is restricted.

The question is why do you want it? If your not military -you don't need it! That's why it restricted- Need to know, military use only. :mad:

First, the nefarious purpose to which I intend to put this manual is simply that I collect military sniping manuals. I have hard copies of most of them but downloading them is considerably cheaper and saves space (I have all my manuals on a single CDROM).
Next, access to the manual is restricted on the Internet- not restricted from public distribution. Were I to file a Freedom of Information Act request, I'd receive a hard copy of the material. Downloading a copy is considerably easier. As a matter of fact, since all field manuals have been designated "Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited," as stated on the Reimer Digital Library field manual page, they would likely email me a copy if I requested one and had an email account that would accept more than a couple of megabytes at a time. The Marine Corps was kind enough to send me a hard copy of one of their restricted manuals for the asking.
The reason these unclassified manuals- paid for by our tax dollars- are restricted access is a matter of public relations rather than national security. Even the demolitions manuals can be purchased from private vendors should the ne'er-do-wells that you seem so concerned about want one. The Army just doesn't want the media complaining that they're distributing "bomb making materials."
For example, FM 31-27 "PACK ANIMALS IN SUPPORT OF ARMY SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES" is restricted. We must secure those secret mule-training techniques from foreign eyes. Some of the manuals are restricted in english but the spanish versions are unrestricted. In some cases I think they just had more room on the secure server so parked the manuals there.
The content of the Special Forces sniping manual is essentially the same as the standard Army sniping manual (FM23-10)- which is not restricted- save it covers the use of foreign weapons and the training of indigenous forces with non-standard and improvised equipment. Wow! A real threat to the security of the world as we know it.
As for me being a civilian; did you bother to ask? I happen to no longer be active duty military but while I was I held a top-secret clearance so maybe I can correct your terminology. The phrase you're looking for is "for official use only;" there is no official term "for military use only." All DOD originating materials are classified "for official use only" even if that official use includes public distribution.
But, thanks for your input. :)

I am a firm believer in "if you don't want people asking about what you don't want them to have just for the asking then don't advertize that you have it in the first place".

sionaprhys I am with you, but unfortunatly, I think you are out of luck from that source. Sorry man.

If you are ever in Fayetteville NC., Just swing by one of the many pawn shops. You would be surprise on how many FM- manuals are floating around. Yes the sniper one two. If you look hard you just might find it on the web.

While not exactly what you are looking for, Book Trail has several books about military marksmanship training.
http://www.booktrail.com/

First, the nefarious purpose to which I intend to put this manual is simply that I collect military sniping manuals. I have hard copies of most of them but downloading them is considerably cheaper and saves space (I have all my manuals on a single CDROM).
Next, access to the manual is restricted on the Internet- not restricted from public distribution. Were I to file a Freedom of Information Act request, I'd receive a hard copy of the material. Downloading a copy is considerably easier. As a matter of fact, since all field manuals have been designated "Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited," as stated on the Reimer Digital Library field manual page, they would likely email me a copy if I requested one and had an email account that would accept more than a couple of megabytes at a time. The Marine Corps was kind enough to send me a hard copy of one of their restricted manuals for the asking.
The reason these unclassified manuals- paid for by our tax dollars- are restricted access is a matter of public relations rather than national security. Even the demolitions manuals can be purchased from private vendors should the ne'er-do-wells that you seem so concerned about want one. The Army just doesn't want the media complaining that they're distributing "bomb making materials."
For example, FM 31-27 "PACK ANIMALS IN SUPPORT OF ARMY SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES" is restricted. We must secure those secret mule-training techniques from foreign eyes. Some of the manuals are restricted in english but the spanish versions are unrestricted. In some cases I think they just had more room on the secure server so parked the manuals there.
The content of the Special Forces sniping manual is essentially the same as the standard Army sniping manual (FM23-10)- which is not restricted- save it covers the use of foreign weapons and the training of indigenous forces with non-standard and improvised equipment. Wow! A real threat to the security of the world as we know it.
As for me being a civilian; did you bother to ask? I happen to no longer be active duty military but while I was I held a top-secret clearance so maybe I can correct your terminology. The phrase you're looking for is "for official use only;" there is no official term "for military use only." All DOD originating materials are classified "for official use only" even if that official use includes public distribution.
But, thanks for your input. :)

All military FMs have been caveated since 911. In the SF business, now termed SOF, techniques and doctrine (from
FMs) are considered sensitive for operational reasons. Knowledge of Tactics, techniques and procedures is key to intelligence collection and the start for establishment of templates on targeted forces. This is the bottom line reason that these unclassified documents are now restricted from public use. Your hobby will have to wait.

sionaphrys,
Good answer. You can get these and other FM's on the internet from Paladin Press or Amazon, or any gunshow. It amazes me what people think should be restricted. I suppose my copies of "Marine Sniper", and "A Rifleman Goes To War" should be restricted as well, lest I gain some mystical tactical info from them, and someday decide to become Lee Harvey Oswald. Attitudes like that really bother me. Why do you need that Barrett .50 cal? Why do you need that AR-15? Why do you need that hi cap handgun mag? Next question is why do you need...and you fill in the blank.

sionaphrys,
Good answer. You can get these and other FM's on the internet from Paladin Press or Amazon, or any gunshow. It amazes me what people think should be restricted. I suppose my copies of "Marine Sniper", and "A Rifleman Goes To War" should be restricted as well, lest I gain some mystical tactical info from them, and someday decide to become Lee Harvey Oswald. Attitudes like that really bother me. Why do you need that Barrett .50 cal? Why do you need that AR-15? Why do you need that hi cap handgun mag? Next question is why do you need...and you fill in the blank.


My feelings as well.

sionaphrys,
Good answer. You can get these and other FM's on the internet from Paladin Press or Amazon, or any gunshow. It amazes me what people think should be restricted. I suppose my copies of "Marine Sniper", and "A Rifleman Goes To War" should be restricted as well, lest I gain some mystical tactical info from them, and someday decide to become Lee Harvey Oswald. Attitudes like that really bother me. Why do you need that Barrett .50 cal? Why do you need that AR-15? Why do you need that hi cap handgun mag? Next question is why do you need...and you fill in the blank.


I'd say that's a little different than making military tactics easy to obtain. Maybe we should make the land-sea-air doctrine easy to obtain as well? Or how about nuclear weapons protocal? While I'm all for our freedoms, having been in the position where certain information can jeopardize me, my fellow soldiers or the mission, I'd rather not allow ALL tactics easy to obtain.

Marine Sniper and A Rifleman goes to War are not official training or field manuels. Special Forces Sniper Training and Employment is. Much of what they do is covert and involves many different styles of missions. While they are operating in this capacity, why jeopardize any of it? Knowledge is power and knowing how they operate and will react to certain situations greatly reduces their chances of being successful.

The point being that the info is freely available in any number of venues, and if you think that making an Army/Marine Corps FM available to the public is going to undermine our security, well I'll have to disagree with that statement. No one is saying that we should publish classified material, but FM's don't come under that category, and the material is and has been out and available for years. Much like closing the barn door after the animals are gone. You also don't have to lecture me on the mission of the sniper. I used to work with USMC Scout Snipers and am very familiar with their misson.

Nope, no lecture, I know many are available in surplus stores and my point being more that certain things don't belong on the internet such as this because you know as well as I do who else has internet accessablity. bin Laden and his cronies, Al Queda, insurgents, and a host of other ***holes who would use it to their advantage. Why make it easier for them to obtain? That's more my point.

What capacity did you work with the UCMC snipers? Insertion? Extraction? So you know how important certain things are not only with them but with Recon, SF, Rangers, SEALS, etc. they do a lot of things from intel to rescue. So being a former pilot you know where I'm coming from and you know certain things that the pilots did that don't need to be readily available even if they are in manuals here stateside. Like maybe your escape and evasion tactics for starters? In the first Gulf War, Iraq got a lot of their intel from CNN and seeing how they thought they had a right to know certain things even if it jeopardized people (including me and my platoon) or missions made me rethink some of what they actually had a right to know, at least until it was over.

The logic still applies. If you want to restrict public information about certain "tactical" ideas and training protocols, where do you draw the line? Do you want to shut down the internet or publication of certain types of books? By that logic this forum and many others should be shut down lest some enemy of the state gain insight on how to shoot accurately and hunt game, which is after all what sniping is about. Websites such as snipercountry.com, AR-15.com and others would no longer be available. I still see anti gun congressman and groups trying to restrict sales of certain types of weapons such as the Barrett .50 and other "military style" rifles on the off chance that some terrorist might get one and do something with it. By extension, any scope sighted hunting rifle becomes a "sniper" weapon, and subject to restriction or ban. Again, just how much liberty do you give up to be "secure"?

As far as my experience, I was the "delivery/recovery" vehicle. I am still flying, but not for Uncle Sugar. All of our insert/extract routes as well as EE routes were time sensitive, and subject to changes based upon conditions. I don't believe any of the aforementioned FM's would have compromised any ops, or given adversaries insight as to the plan. They could give insight generally as to what the doctrine is/was, but the training that our enemies are getting now is coming from sources very similar to our own, and I'm sure that they are well versed in those; thus I don't see the advantage to restricting unclassified information. If it is sensitive, then it should be classified, but in this case, as I said earlier, it's too late.

You are correct and IMO, some of the FMs should not be made available at all. But maybe we maybe see things from a different perspective due to experiences and training. Mine was infantry, yours was flying and I'm sure there are some things you may believe based on your experience may not necessarily be what I believe. But I'm guessing as a pilot you didn't have to be in the bush like we did and experience the things we did. Knowing how units collect intel and recon info, or how certain operations are carried out and their tactics can aid the enemy. Can it make a difference? Maybe, maybe not. But why risk it esp when we're talking about the covert ops units? I'd rather see them have to physically get a hard copy rather than send a URL in email, instantly giving them all instant access. Having been in that situation when it was my *ss on the line maybe biases me a tad.

To be quite honest, the reason that I got into flying was so that I wouldn't have to hump around a 70 pound pack, an M60 and a basic load of ammo anymore. I was in a military college and some of us ROTC students were organised into an aggressor platoon and used as an OpFor against the Ranger students at Merrill. After one three day op in the North Georgia hills in Feb, we were given rides back to Merrill in slicks, and as I observed the pilots up front in clean flight suits in a relatively warm, dry environment, I decided that there was a better way to go to war than walking. Every effort after that was made to pursue an Aviation career, vice Infantry.

I can't fault that, I've always enjoyed flying in the choppers and though I had a lot of fun and good experiences, I can also recall a lot of misery while in the field for weeks at a time in rain, snow, cold, heat, bugs...etc..

Yeah, I was set to be an Airborne Ranger all the way. My dad was Airborne and he had me doing PLF's off of our roof when I was a kid. The reality was somewhat different than the childhood dream though, and I don't regret my decision. As a helicopter pilot I got to do alot of great ops, and meet some great people along the way as well, and I sure like flying for a living. It beats work anyday.

M1, I understand where your concerns are, I can't argue that you are wrong that this would be a great training tool, or insight for those that want to see us all perish, but I have to believe they already have it! They have Guerilla tactics, where did they come from? I love our troops! But it will take all of us to persevere! No one want's to give up a single extra! Not even an SUV. So I guess the fight is ours to fight! Semper Fi! No ill blood ment! We are the same! JP

Just my opinion here, but I'm with M1 on this. I don't really see the public's need for this information. I see the public's "want," but not the need and certainly not a right. Is information already out there? ... without a doubt, but there's no need to make it any easier, ... especially as convenient as the click of a button. Also, just because it is out there, does not mean all the bad guy's have it. Furthermore, there's nothing keeping citizens from coming up with their own methods if they're so inclined. Not intending to get into a flaming argument here either ... just my 2 cents.

Guys I am a Former Marine Scout Sniper, and with that established let me say this about that. Learning the art of sniping from a book is like learning how to be a Kung Fu master after reading a couple of magazine articles! NOT LIKELY!
Oh, I remember reading a book with a story in it about how this little fellow killed a great-big-old-giant of a man with nothing but a rock and a sling. From what I remeber that giant was even better equiped, and had more battlefield expieriance. Do you think we should ban that book because of how it describes the effective use of field expiediant weapons against superiorly equiped forces?
I don't mean to

As Warmutt has said, just because they have it .. understanding it and training is the key! Jp

gringoloco,
As I stated earlier, there are many politicians who recognize the publics "want" for certain types of weapons, but do not perceive the "need" or the "right" to those arms, in defiance of our God given rights enumerated in the Constitution, in particular the Second Amendment thereto. The written word is also enumerated in that document, in the First Amendment, and applies in this case as well. I understand the Governments need to classify certain materials in order to meet it's Constitutional obligation for the defense of the country, but banning certain types of written material that are under no special classification and never have been is, to my mind, a large step down that oh so slippery slope which leads to tyranny. I personally believe that we are already rapidly approaching that point anyway, but too many people have too much to lose to take action to change things. Once the people understand that they are on the verge of losing everything, or have lost it, then they will begin to use their Second Amendment rights to regain the others under the First and Fourth, if they still have the means with which to do so.

Does anyone know of an online source for FM 3-05.222 SPECIAL FORCES SNIPER TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT, 25 APR 2003? The Army Doctrine and Training Digital Library (www.adtdl.army.mil) has it but, despite the fact that it's unclassified, the file is restricted.

been surfing myself and have some links that may help you. havnt tried them all yet tho.

http://www.everlines.com/list/600.htm
http://www.army.mil/usapa/doctrine/31_Series_Collection_1.html
http://www.jrtc-polk.army.mil/ops/tf1/TAFF%20Data/RDL%20FMs.htm
https://www.us.army.mil/suite/login/welcome.html#
http://www.derekjhunt.org/firearms/docs/23-10/toc.htm

Nope, no lecture, I know many are available in surplus stores and my point being more that certain things don't belong on the internet such as this because you know as well as I do who else has internet accessablity. bin Laden and his cronies, Al Queda, insurgents, and a host of other ***holes who would use it to their advantage. Why make it easier for them to obtain? That's more my point.

What capacity did you work with the UCMC snipers? Insertion? Extraction? So you know how important certain things are not only with them but with Recon, SF, Rangers, SEALS, etc. they do a lot of things from intel to rescue. So being a former pilot you know where I'm coming from and you know certain things that the pilots did that don't need to be readily available even if they are in manuals here stateside. Like maybe your escape and evasion tactics for starters? In the first Gulf War, Iraq got a lot of their intel from CNN and seeing how they thought they had a right to know certain things even if it jeopardized people (including me and my platoon) or missions made me rethink some of what they actually had a right to know, at least until it was over.

All the stuff has been available at Paladin for years, yes, including nuclear protocals.
No reason to restrict it. Bin Laden is U.S. trained. It's all very common knowledge since the inception of the military field manual. You also have to bare in mind that sattelite technology allows anyone with a laptop and a link to monitor just about anything. If it is on CNN it's already too late.

i think its a game of chess, best team thats trained wins the game. its not just knowing the next best move, theres a lot more into it. no matter the restrictions, its out there and inevitable. who knows, even when there was no internet, the tangos may have had all the FMs they could ever read.