Sharps Rifle and Sharpshooters

[Lane Meyer]

Why is it that the Sharps rifle has the same amount of sway, and apparent randomness in the ability to hit a target, as the other muskets/rifles? If it's going to be the case that you can't be more accurate with the Sharps, then why even bother having sharpshooter regiments appear in the game? This is extremely annoying.

[Melonfish]

The sway in game is quite high but this is a known thing setup by the devs in order to make the game a little fairer to people as the rifles themselves are very bloody accurate.
do remember though that running and general exersion will add to sway as will suppression, and for the most part you're standing when firing, not exactly the best for long range shots.
Pete

[Sox]

Why is it that the Sharps rifle has the same amount of sway, and apparent randomness in the ability to hit a target, as the other muskets/rifles? If it's going to be the case that you can't be more accurate with the Sharps, then why even bother having sharpshooter regiments appear in the game? This is extremely annoying.

Because, for the most part, sharpshooter 'regiments' fought as line soldiers, or at best skirmishers for their brigade.

[Shiloh]

Because, for the most part, sharpshooter 'regiments' fought as line soldiers, or at best skirmishers for their brigade.

They rarely fought as line soldiers. At the Battle of Antietam the 2nd fought in line but this was not typical at all. I've read four books on the Berdan's Sharpshooters and to my knowledge that was the only time during the war they fought in line. They were typically out in advance of the other troops and were connected or assigned to brigades but they certainly didn't stand in line shoulder to shoulder and fight with line regiments or as mentioned above, in very rare cases.

I'm speaking of Berdans' 1st and 2nd Sharpshooter regiments and not of other such regiments.

Then there is the other aspect that in-game, we are almost always outnumbered by larger line regiments so in reality that should balance things out overall without having to add sway or similar 'nerfs' to the Sharps as by sheer numbers of troops it balances out.

As it stands in game the only advantage to having the Sharps is rate of fire but there are accounts in the war of Sharpshooters hitting targets at over 800 yards and in rare cases at over 1,200 yards.

[thomas aagaard]

As it stands in game the only advantage to having the Sharps is rate of fire but there are accounts in the war of Sharpshooters hitting targets at over 800 yards and in rare cases at over 1,200 yards.

And most of them are myths, pure luck and many people firing at the same target. (Or even firing from ordinary line units going high and hitting way beyond their target, striking people by pure accident)
And some that are well documented was done with civilian target rifles or similar.

The Sharps was not a better weapon than the enfield for long range shooting... but as a breech loaded rifle it was way better as a weapon for skirmishing...

[Shiloh]

And most of them are myths, pure luck and many people firing at the same target. (Or even firing from ordinary line units going high and hitting way beyond their target, striking people by pure accident)
And some that are well documented was done with civilian target rifles or similar.

The Sharps was not a better weapon than the enfield for long range shooting... but as a breech loaded rifle it was way better as a weapon for skirmishing...

They did carry some civilian rifles with good scopes on them, and used them for some of that long range shooting. But to say it's a myth is not very accurate in itself. Where did you hear that from? There are first-hand soldier accounts - otherwise known as primary sources which is our best documentation for understanding what actually happened in history - that they hit targets in excess of 800 yards and often over a thousand.

[Leifr]

First hand accounts may exist but it does not necessarily mean that they are accurate or even correct in statement.

[Shiloh]

First hand accounts may exist but it does not necessarily mean that they are accurate or even correct in statement.

True but first hand accounts are the best we have when exploring history. Generally when talking about a certain event unless someone gives an entirely different account, we have to take the account that was originally given as fact or as close to fact as possible given no one gave a different account.

[Poorlaggedman]

There are also alleged first-hand accounts of bullets meeting mid air between the same two opposing sharpshooters until they decided to call a truce and talk it out.

I think what's supposed to make or break the Sharpshooter role is the person playing it not the weapon. The Sharps Rifle is legit in WoR, you just have to know how to shoot. Unfortunately I lost all the footage of myself sniping on Hooker's Push in September and October. I monkeyed around using the different range settings and shooting high and low until I was able to occasionally hit targets at quite a distance and moving ones at that. It's only really apparent when you hit someone when you fire at lone enemy. It's too hard to tell at formations at very long range. It'd be interesting to try it with a spotter with binoculars

I do believe some level of crowdfunder eventually gets a scoped target rifle.

I liked this essay but it doesn't talk much about the range
http://npshistory.com/series/symposi.../11/essay5.pdf

[Sox]

True but first hand accounts are the best we have when exploring history.

Well that's actually not true at all. As Leifr pointed out, you need multiple sources & not just one. I'm well aware of the role that the 1st & 2nd U.S played, they were usually skirmishers, but skirmishers were still line soldiers. Marksmen/Snipers, as we understand the term today, did not fight on the line or in skirmish formation, which is I think, what is confusing the OP. Sharpshooter regiments & companies were not snipers, they were good shots, and that takes much more than having a 'good gun'.