During the early modern period, did snipers range ahead of their army or did they stay behind their army and shoot past the front line? Was it different in the revolutionary war vs the napoleonic or even the 30 years war? I know before smokeless powder smoke from guns could obscure the battlefield. Did snipers have a way around that?
For the Thirty Years War, and the British Civil Wars, "snipers" as we understand them were not often used, at least on the Battlefield. Military firearms were heavy, awkward, and smoothbore, meaning that there was no real purpose on the battlefield for accurate "rifle" fire. Roving cavalry meant that leaving the safety of your pike-armed comrades was not a great choice for an infantryman encumbered with a heavy musket and loading equipment.
There were more accurate guns, but they were very rare, and very expensive. Usually used by wealthy men for hunting or sport, they were very expensive (each rifled barrel had to be custom made), and incorporated the latest developments in ignition. So rather than a matchlock, they were what we (but rarely contemporaries) might term 'flintlock'. Flintlock musket-type weapons were most often issued to elite infantry units, or even dragoons - but never in large numbers to line infantry, although flintlock pistols were common for officers and cavalry. The 'elite' infantry units, often termed firelocks, were usually responsible for piquet duty, or guarding the artillery train (were a lit piece of slow match was seen as dangerous either for a many on night guard, or around powder stores), and rarely were brigaded with pikemen, thereby making them useless on the open field. Units of Firelocks were usually used to secure and hold areas that mounted cavalry couldnt threaten them - woods, hedges, buildings etc.
Examples do exist of men being killed by snipers, but this usually occurred during sieges when the sniper was ensconced in a secure defended position, such as a town or a garrison and shooting at officers amongst the besieging force. For instance in 1643 when Lord Brooke commanding the Parliamentarian attack on the Royalist garrison of Lichfield was shot at long range by John Dyott from Lichfield Cathedral's central spire. Dyott made the shot reputedly at around 200 yards, possibly more - which was about 4/5 times the accepted accurate range of a contemporary musket back then. Dyott is described as both deaf and mute, but nonetheless he came from a wealthy local family, and his brother Richard (later Sir Richard) was apparently acting as his 'spotter' when Dyott killed Lord Brooke with a shot through the eye. The range of the shot, the accuracy of the shot, and that the entrance wound was identifiable (usually men were listed as shot in the face or head - musket wounds being....messy) suggests a finer rifled weapon rather than a heavy musket, possibly one with a smaller bore for target or game shooting.