[BeerSleeper]

If someone claims they can hit a quarter at 1000m with a common, military grade m16, is that realistically possible, or a person full of BS?

[rikman]

Bs ... Basic physics


Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

[MachIVshooter]

With enough rounds, it's a statistical inevitability.

With one shot (or 3, or 5, or 10)? Don't think so. I'd be pure luck.

[Shadow 7D]

BS

that's 1/10th MOA
1MOA = 1" at 100 yards so...
and that is besides how a .22 round flys at extended distances....

[firesky101]

Give me a few thousand rounds and I could probably get It sooner or later.

[BeerSleeper]

A fraternity brother of mine from school is claiming this on a facebook.

I argued it couldn't be done, but he got me doubting myself.

He always was a master bull...

[BeerSleeper]

I offered to buy him a rifle if he would demonstrate, on the condition he buys me a rifle if he fails.

He would not accept the challenge, but he's still insisting, and is beyond backing down...

Gonna have to drop this one and just move on to the next topic of conversation.

[ugaarguy]

The 17 pound max weight "light gun" category NBRSA world record for a single group of 5 shots at 1000 yards is 1.473 inch - http://nbrsa.org/node/65. A US Quarter is .955 inch. There are few rifles and shooters in the world capable of hitting a quarter at 1000 yards.

[ZGunner]

With enough rounds, it's a statistical inevitability.

With one shot (or 3, or 5, or 10)? Don't think so. I'd be pure luck.

I agree with this here. It can be done, but there are so many variables to consider when shooting at that distance it wouldn't be due to skill.

[firesky101]

If you are buying an m16 for the bet that is an expensive bet. A mil-spec ar is a different matter, still expensive but not new ford focus money.

[hogshead]

Considering a bullet drop of around 300 inches and a drift of over a hundred inches with a 10mph crosswind at a thousand yards it would be more luck than skill I would think.

[Shadow 7D]

Give him a quarter and two shots, he hits the quarter he keeps the rifle and you get the quarter, he misses, you keep the rifle and he keeps the quarter to practice.

[JohnKSa]

There are few rifles and shooters in the world capable of hitting a quarter at 1000 yards.Yup. Even then they might take several shots--maybe even a lot of shots to connect. Benchrest shooters are shooting for groups, not for a specific spot on the target. It's one thing to send a group of rounds downrange and have them all land close to each other. It's another thing to get one to land exactly where you want on the target.

Hitting a quarter at 1000 meters with an M16 or AR15 or anything that looks even a little bit like one would be pure luck. Bet him $100 for every shot he hits as long as he pays you $1 for every shot he takes and misses.

[1911 guy]

Most run of the mill M-16 rifles I handled were somewhere around 1.5 MOA. Some were MOA rifles, a lot of them were 2 MOA rifles. Let's be generous and say he gets handed a true 1 MOA rifle. 1 MOA at 100 yards is 1.047". At 100 meters, that's 1.13425". Multiply that times 10 and 1 MOA at 1,000 yards is 11.3425". ugaarguy says a U.S. quarter is .955". The quarter is .084 MOA. Eliminating ALL variables, it could take up to 12 shots just to hit it by chance. The reality is that it would be nearly impossible. Holding 1 MOA past 300 or 400 yards is much more difficult than holding it at 100 or 200.

[Detritus]

If i remember correctly, if the ammo and rifle are of GI spec, at 1K he'd be lucky if the bullet went through a standard target-face point first, or even reached the target at all, much less having a chance to hit anything that small.
Disregarding the factors relating to the requirements shooter-wise of going that long. The .223 round out of ANY rifle is out on the very thinest edge of it's performance out that far. And even then only it requires purpose built rifles shooting custom ammo with 80 and 90gr bullets loaded too long for mag-length, and right at the point where "fast enough" and "proof load" start to overlap.

the AMU gave up on shooting even their purpose built 5.56/.223 ARs at 1K a few years ago (they're the reason M110 clones are now legal for use in High Power at 1,000yrds) seems even with all the support they get as far as being able to get custom built rifles and ammo, and armorers to keep em running they were having trouble with bullets going unstable or even runningout of gas completely, at or short of the 1k mark.

so yeah you're friend is trying to sell a compost heap class pile-o-BS

[Driftertank]

Frankly, it would take a damn good shot with match ammo to make a first-round hit on a B-27 silhouette in no-wind conditions using a rack grade A2.

Hitting a quarter at 100 yd with match ammo from a carefully selected service rifle is a feat of marksmanship. Claiming to do the same af 10 times the range is pure, organic, corn-fed, USDA-Choice bull-puckey. Unless of course, he was handed a full-auto M16, a stack of loaded mags, and told to fire until something went metal-to-metal...

With enough lead flying downrange, you can hit anything.

[TAKtical]

Im sure if he covered the broad side of a barn with quarters he might hit one of them

[Shadow 7D]

The quarter is .084 MOA. Eliminating ALL variables, it could take up to 12 shots just to hit it by chance. The reality is that it would be nearly impossible. Holding 1 MOA past 300 or 400 yards is much more difficult than holding it at 100 or 200.
Sorry, that's WRONG, you are dealing with area, so the difference is EXPONENTIAL, as the area of the quarter is circle of .955", within the 1.5 MOA (at 1000 METERS) So you are doing the difference of AREAS not diameters.

Point is, it will take MANY more shots to get the statistical, and as others stated, I'm not sure when a 5.56 goes subsonic, but once that happens.....

[Warp]

He is totally and completely full of it.

[lefteyedom]

There is a way to do this..

Take two 4X8 piece of plywood, cover each with quarters glued to the wood. Set the two sheets of plywood side by side forming a 8ft square target. Wait till a claim day and use to best combination of rifle and ammo fire from a stable bench.

Then it is possible to hit "A" quarter at 1000 yards with a M16 rifle

[1911 guy]

Quote:
Sorry, that's WRONG, you are dealing with area, so the difference is EXPONENTIAL, as the area of the quarter is circle of .955", within the 1.5 MOA (at 1000 METERS) So you are doing the difference of AREAS not diameters.

Eh. Mea Culpa. You're right. Late at night and my brain is frazzled. I should stick to cartoons after 11:00 p.m.

[madcratebuilder]

someone claims they can hit a quarter at 1000m

A quarter what? Quarter sheet of plywood? Possibly.

[brnmuenchow]

Hitting a quarter at 1000 meters with an M16 or AR15 or anything that looks even a little bit like one would be pure luck. Bet him $100 for every shot he hits as long as he pays you $1 for every shot he takes and misses.

Great for a new reality TV show "How to become the next Millionaire!" :D

[XxBulletBendeRXx]

Yep.... The BS is waaaay over the knees on this one!!!

[taliv]

bet him he can't hit the quarter at 100 yards. you will win

most people can't even SEE a quarter at 100 yards.

[hardluk1]

Concedering one of the tightest small bore groups ever shoot at 1000 yards is 1.462" group size at 1000 yards with a custom made bench rifle I would say you don't have much to worry abaout. With a mil grade m16 it would be all luck involded if he hit a quarter at 100 yards.

[303tom]

If someone claims they can hit a quarter at 1000m with a common, military grade m16, is that realistically possible, or a person full of BS?
That person is full of (you know what) Dung.................

[tomrkba]

If your friend can hit a quarter at 1000 meters with an unmodified AR-15, then why is he not on a professional shooting team? He could be making very good money shooting and promoting shooting products. He would be on TV regularly. He could start his own business and go around the country running training classes.

Instead, he's sitting at his keyboard making outlandish statements.

The world record group is nowhere near the size of a quarter. I am not sure if this is the current record since it's from 2010. I think someone beat his:

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2010/09/matt-kline-shoots-2-815-record-at-1000-yards-with-300-wsm/

http://accurateshooter.net/Blog/mattkline03a.jpg

[USMC8541]

You can play Basketball with an m16 at 1000 yards

[Madcap_Magician]

That's such a comedic claim I find it funny that you even had to ask us before calling BS.

[HKGuns]

College kids..........

[SlamFire1]

The kid probably saw something about Carlos Hathcock shooting through a VC's scope at 1000 yards, and the scope objective lense on that rifle was about a quarter in size, and he figures that he can do the same with an iron sighted M16.

[hentown]

I'd bet that the current Camp Perry champion couldn't hit a quarter @ 1000 meters with an M16, in 1M rounds. (that's a big "M"!!):rolleyes:

[X-Rap]

I would agree that people making stupid claims like that probably couldn't hit a quarter at 100yds if they've ever shot at all.
Make the bet.

When you say common military grade are you also saying no optics? I'd make the $100 per shot bet on a 5 shot group. Not to say it can't be done, I have an HBar that I could hit a quarter in 5 shots at 100 but it might cost me $400 to do it.

[henschman]

Any 5.56 load is subsonic by 1000 yards. That just makes it that much harder to hit anything, plus the havoc that wind plays with a lightweight, low ballistic coefficient round like that. And if he says he can do it with standard issue ball ammo, he is just piling it higher and deeper, because it will be unstable and going ass over teakettle at that distance.

[Creature]

taliv wrote:

bet him he can't hit the quarter at 100 yards. you will win

most people can't even SEE a quarter at 100 yards.

This. And you get to place the quarter anywhere on the target holder...not dead center.

[mljdeckard]

I was so tickled with myself when I finally got serious about testing some of my rifles for accuracy. I inherited them from my dad, and as long as they would hit a milk jug at 100 paces over the hood of the truck, they were good enough for him. So I handloaded a few different bullets, bought a Caldwell bench rest, and went to the range-range where it is all measured and stuff, and with a few tries, I shot a Remington 700 VSSF 22-250 to groups just barely one inch. From my over-excited shaky hands, I'm calling that sub-MOA. I had to crank the magnification up to 20. Back when I still had eyes, 20 years ago, I could see the zero targets @ 25 yards to know how to adjust my M-16 sights. They aren't that good anymore. @ 100, I need the scope, preferably with shoot-n-c targets. He can't see a quarter @ 1000 yards.

(I love how we gang up on such a controversy. :)

[sansone]

let's do the math:
a good rifle and shooter combination can expect (1)MOA ...
so @ 1k yards a 10" dinner plate would be a very good shot

[fatcat4620]

If he is saying this on facebook then challenge him on facebook.

[Pete D.]

Any 5.56 load is subsonic by 1000 yards.

Maybe...Berger lists an 80 grain VLD at 2700fps......still supersonic at 1000 yards -barely - at 1146fps. (S of s at sea level is 1126 fps). Whether that velocity is attainable is debatable. Sierra's 80 is subsonic. Their 90 grainer drops subsonic (1121fps when started at 2400 fps.) Between 950 and 1000 yards.

[jogar80]

Your friend's claim is complete and utter BS!! Not even I can make that shot!! And that's that I can hit 2 side by side quarters with one shot at 300 yds by putting a machete just ahead of the quarters and splitting the bullet with it!! LOL

That was also BS by the way, in case anyone was wondering...... I can only do that at 100 yds! LOL.... ok BS again

[roadchoad]

If someone claims they can hit a quarter at 1000m with a common, military grade m16, is that realistically possible, or a person full of BS?

Quarter sheet of drywall maybe. 25 cent piece, no way. Send your buddy a link to this thread.

[Shadow 7D]

First MAKE HIM PUT MONEY WHERE HIS MOUTH IS
then send him this thread and how you would like to take payment

[jogar80]

There's also the fact that you CAN'T EVEN SEE a quarter at 1000 yds!!!


(Just saw Taliv already mentioned this)

[smithman 10]

The other question is, if someone managed to hit the quarter, would the quarter feel it?

What I mean is, how much kinetic energy does a 5.56 mm projectile retain at 1000 yards?

Just curious.

[HoosierQ]

Now I read on this forum I believe an anecdote by an M249 gunner in Iraq who stated that he regularly and effectively engaged targets at 1000 meters. But that's a high rate of fire light machine gun and his targets would be enemy combatants and he'd have many, many rounds goinh downrange with which to correct and needn't have worried where each and every round ended up. He certainly never claimed to have hit a quarter.

I think we can all agree however, that whatever was hit by a 5.56 round at 1000 yards or meters...the hole would be nicely covered by a US Quarter. Huh...think about that :rolleyes: Not so far-fetched after all ;) Of course the bullet goes down range first and then the quarter...an attempt at humor...we're here all week, try the veal.

[BeerSleeper]

It was 15 years ago when he was in the army, and they "had to hit a 6 inch circle at 1km to qualify expert" (his words, not mine). I thought qualifying expert was a score based on a number of targets hit, not hit "x" size target at "y" distance.

it's become something of a behavioral science experiment now. I quit responding, but the conversation rolls on. I'm just wondering if he thinks he's pulling my leg, or if he actually believes himself.

It's like retelling a fishing story...the fish gets bigger every year.

[Shadow 7D]

There are 1000 meter KD ranges, help work one when in training, the manual says the maximum effective engagement range (group/vehicle) for a M16 is 800M
our snipers worked the 1K range, course they were shooting .50BMG and 7.62 bolt guns.
As for qualifying expert, the standard course (for the ARMY) for 30??? years, has been pop up targets out to 300M, 20 rounds prone, 20 rounds in a foxhole. Alternate is paper silhouette at 25M

his pile of lies is just getting larger and larger...
ask to see his DD214

[BeerSleeper]

That's such a comedic claim I find it funny that you even had to ask us before calling BS.
I called shenanigans first, but when he defended his point, I chose to check my sources.

If he is saying this on facebook then challenge him on facebook.
I've disputed his point several times. He's not one to change his mind, I gain nothing by convincing him, it's time to let it go. It is madness to think one can correct every wrong person on the internet.

I'm going to have to remember to fact check any information I get from him in the future.

[HarcyPervin]

This has all the feel of the old - "I can drink 3 beers faster than you can drink 3 shots" or "I can light a cigarette, take 5 puffs, ash it each time, and it won't be any shorter" gimmicks....be careful on how you bet...I've won some money on each of the above...

[jdh]

Our rifle instructor in basic was so sure that a trainee could not shoot an M16 well enough to hit his campaign hat he walked out to the 300 meter line and put it on the target. He said if anyone hit it they would get a weekend pass. The first three shooters kick up dirt in front of the 250 yard line. The fourth shooter steps up, assumes a textbook offhand stance, lets loose a round, and watches the hat fall to the ground. The drill does his best R. Lee Ermey imitation in the shooters face then runs down range to retrieve his hat to find the brass with a hole at 7 o'clock about 1/2" from the center. A conference of the assembled Drill Sergeants was convened.

BUT, even on my best day, when in the greatest of harmony with the force, I do not believe I could hit a quarter at 1000 yards with a general issue M16.

BTW, I did get the weekend pass, and two extra days of KP.

[back40]

jdh, that's good stuff :D

[GLOOB]

BUT, even on my best day, when in the greatest of harmony with the force, I do not believe I could hit a quarter at 1000 yards with a general issue M16.
Ditto, but drop the part in bold.

If you take that world record 10 shot group posted on page 2, and you stuck a quarter in the center of it, it would have been hit only once. If you stuck it on the bullseye, it would have been hit only once. I don't care what the rifle, I wouldn't bother trying. I'd actually have the best chance with an M-16, cuz I could burn through more rounds before getting tired.

[JohnKSa]

It was 15 years ago when he was in the army, and they "had to hit a 6 inch circle at 1km to qualify expertIf he really was in the army, he's forgotten a lot about the qualification course.

I believe the longest distance on the standard army qualification course is 300M.

[Black Butte]

Sorry, that's WRONG, you are dealing with area, so the difference is EXPONENTIAL, as the area of the quarter is circle of .955", within the 1.5 MOA (at 1000 METERS) So you are doing the difference of AREAS not diameters.

Nope, 1911 guy is correct and you are wrong. A quarter presents .0834 minutes of angle at 1000 meters and .0912 minutes of angle at 1000 yards. Those are the facts.

[Warp]

Nope, 1911 guy is correct and you are wrong. A quarter presents .0834 minutes of angle at 1000 meters and .0912 minutes of angle at 1000 yards. Those are the facts.

Are you sure it's 0.0912 MOA? My Googling says a quarter has a diameter of 0.955 inches, which would be 0.0955 MOA (at 1k yards), right? Or am I missing something?

Either way, a US Quarter <0.10 MOA at 1k yards

[firesky101]

Are you sure it's 0.0912 MOA? My Googling says a quarter has a diameter of 0.955 inches, which would be 0.0955 MOA, right? Or am I missing something?

Either way, a US Quarter <0.10 MOA at 1k yards
Minute of Angle is a angular measurement not a linear measurement like inches. 1MOA is really close to 1" at 100yards, but they are not perfectly interchangeable.

[Black Butte]

Warp, you are correct. The small difference in our numbers comes from the fact that I did an exact calculation and you used the approximation (which is close, but not exact) that one inch is one minute of angle at 100 yards. Actually, 1.0472 inches is one minute of angle at 100 yards.

[Warp]

Thanks. That slipped my mind. Too used to just using the simplistic 1" at 100 = 1 MOA

[Jeff F]

Out of curiosity, how much scope would you need to be able to sight a quarter at a 1000 M

[mstreddy]

Wow, a quarter at 1K yards... Man, he's got skills.
That tops my feat of hitting a quarter on one shot with my issue M4, iron sights -- at the whopping distance of 25 yards. I still have that quarter around somewhere. Mind, that is my issued rifle and has been zeroed at 25 yards and I was in the prone supported. So, as long as I could see the spot where the quarter was resting I was able to put the tip of the front sight post on it. Lucky, yes, that too! Won that bet with my CATM (range) instructor, he missed by 1 inch on his one shot. That was about 5-6 years ago, and now my eyes are not what they were in that short span. I'm going to have to try to replicate that some day soon.
But, back to our enterprising hero in the story -- you know, I've learned to just shake my head and walk away when faced with the incredulous stories from the BS types. When the rare opportunity pops up to have them prove their prowess it seldom goes their way.

/Eddy

[tomrkba]

Remember folks...the world record is 2.815" at 1,000 yards.

[jdh]

jdh, that's good stuff

Luck, plain and simple luck. Probably could not do it again. But the look on the drills face was worth every minute spent peeling potatoes.

[aka108]

Heiferdust. He couldn't see a quarter at 1000yds. With a stock M16 he'd be doing well to hit a quarter with any regularity at 50 yds unless it was scoped.

[ApacheCoTodd]

I used to be able to hit a quarter at 1000 yards with mine but due to the economy - now - I can only hit a dime!:D

It's funny to read this as I was doin' a show a few years back and "some dude" stands there telling me that a 24 inch bull barreled rifle I had was unnecessary because he could "hit a quarter at a thousand yards with an M-16". I gave it about a three second pause to see where he was going then finally released my heavily stifled... "Buwhaaaa!!! No You Can't!" His turn do hold a three second pause then just as he's about to get all indignant, his buddy steps in and calls him out like only a pal or brother can.

[Shadow 7D]

Black Butte: get ready for a math lesson
1.5MOA (with MOA defined by you as 1.0472 inches is one minute of angle at 100 yards.)

1.5*1.0472*10 (1000yards/100yards)=15.708"
so, 1.5 MOA at 1000 yards is a circle with a diameter of 15.708
so.... now comes the geometry, the difference is not in diameters, BUT in area to get the statistical probability of hitting a quarter. (oh and yer off on the MOA of a quarter at 1000 - my calculation has .955/15.708=0.060797)

So 1.5MOA at 1K = 178.557 inches square, and the quarter would be .716 inches square......
then you have to assume that no spot is struck twice, find the probable area of the striking round (is it tumbling) and that all shots are evenly distributed (which added to too the first assumption makes this pretty much worthless in real life but MUCH simpler)

As you attempting to define the number of times a bullet with an area of 0.039 needs to intersect intersect a circle of 1.5 MOA to strike a disk with an area of .716.

I could write the problem and work, but it would require me digging out too many reference books right now. a stupid guestimate would be 178.557 - 1.090 (area of a circle the diameter of a quarter plus bullet) / 0.039 (area) of a .223 bullet.

[FMF Doc]

The military (USMC specifically) uses a varient of the M16 called the MK-12 SPR (special purpose rifle). It was pretty good in urban area in Iraq as a DM (designated marksman, kind of like a snipe lite) rifle. It is a highly tuned and customized M16, much better than the rack grade issued rifles the GIs carry, and it had a wonderful 3.5–10×40 mm Leupold LR M3 (SPR/A) scope on it. Even so, we would rarely get 1" groups in training with matchgrade ammo at further than 350-375m. At a grand, you might hit it in 2-4 rounds, but you'll be damed to try to repeat it with the MK-12, let alone a rack grade M16.

[Black Butte]

Black Butte: get ready for a math lesson
1.5MOA (with MOA defined by you as )

1.5*1.0472*10 (1000yards/100yards)=15.708"
so, 1.5 MOA at 1000 yards is a circle with a diameter of 15.708
so.... now comes the geometry, the difference is not in diameters, BUT in area to get the statistical probability of hitting a quarter. (oh and yer off on the MOA of a quarter at 1000 - my calculation has .955/15.708=0.060797)

So 1.5MOA at 1K = 178.557 inches square, and the quarter would be .716 inches square......
then you have to assume that no spot is struck twice, find the probable area of the striking round (is it tumbling) and that all shots are evenly distributed (which added to too the first assumption makes this pretty much worthless in real life but MUCH simpler)

As you attempting to define the number of times a bullet with an area of 0.039 needs to intersect intersect a circle of 1.5 MOA to strike a disk with an area of .716.

I could write the problem and work, but it would require me digging out too many reference books right now. a stupid guestimate would be 178.557 - 1.090 (area of a circle the diameter of a quarter plus bullet) / 0.039 (area) of a .223 bullet.

First, minutes of angle is a linear measure, not a measure of area. Second, my answers are correct. The following relationship may help you:

d/(2*pi*r) = theta/(60*360)

It says the ratio of the diameter of a quarter (d) to the circumference of a circle having the range as its radius (2*pi*r) is equal to the ratio of the angle measure presented by the diameter of the quarter (theta) to the angle measure of the circle in minutes (60*360).

I'd be happy to explain further if you still don't understand.

[JohnKSa]

First, minutes of angle is a linear measure, not a measure of area.And that's exactly why comparing diameters alone doesn't tell the whole story.

Your calculation would be correct if the bullet were somehow constrained so that it could only deviate from the point of aim along a single line. In reality, bullets deviate from their point of aim on the target in two dimensions not just along a single linear axis. The portion of a target that a bullet can hit is defined by an area, not a set of points along a single line.

Therefore the probabilities need to involve a comparison of areas and not linear comparisons.

[C-grunt]

It was 15 years ago when he was in the army, and they "had to hit a 6 inch circle at 1km to qualify expert" (his words, not mine). I thought qualifying expert was a score based on a number of targets hit, not hit "x" size target at "y" distance.

it's become something of a behavioral science experiment now. I quit responding, but the conversation rolls on. I'm just wondering if he thinks he's pulling my leg, or if he actually believes himself.

It's like retelling a fishing story...the fish gets bigger every year.
Like SHADOW 7D stated above the Army doesnt use paper bullseye targets for qualification like the USMC does. We use pop up sihlouette targets from 50-300 meters.

[C-grunt]

Now I read on this forum I believe an anecdote by an M249 gunner in Iraq who stated that he regularly and effectively engaged targets at 1000 meters. But that's a high rate of fire light machine gun and his targets would be enemy combatants and he'd have many, many rounds goinh downrange with which to correct and needn't have worried where each and every round ended up. He certainly never claimed to have hit a quarter.

I think we can all agree however, that whatever was hit by a 5.56 round at 1000 yards or meters...the hole would be nicely covered by a US Quarter. Huh...think about that :rolleyes: Not so far-fetched after all ;) Of course the bullet goes down range first and then the quarter...an attempt at humor...we're here all week, try the veal.
You are probably talking about me. I shot my M249 out to 1k and beyond on occasions. Mostly at buildings and vehicles though. It was accurate enough that I would have been able to hit single standing people at that range. However it probably wouldnt be on my first try and I would be shooting 5-8 round bursts off a bipod.

[Black Butte]

And that's exactly why comparing diameters alone doesn't tell the whole story.

Nowhere did I "compare diameters."

Your calculation would be correct ...

My calculation is correct.

The portion of a target that a bullet can hit is defined by an area, not a set of points along a single line.

Again, minutes of angle is a linear measure.

Therefore the probabilities need to involve a comparison of areas and not linear comparisons.

I never indicated I was calculating a probability. My post simply said that 1911 guy's assertion that "the quarter is .084 MOA" at 1000 meters was basically correct.

[JohnKSa]

Yeah...

Long version:
1911 guy was trying to calculate hit probabilities using an accuracy figure of about 1.5MOA for the rifle but then comparing target diameters instead of target areas.

Shadow7D explained why the calculation required that one consider areas, not just linear measurements to which you responded with an explanation that a quarter subtended a different amount in minutes of angle at 1000m vs 1000 yards. However, you quoted part of his post which was referencing the discussion about probabilities.

Shadow7D saw that you claimed he was wrong, but based on the part of his post that you quoted didnt realize that the gist of his post (calculating probability using areas vs diameters) was apparently not of interest to you at all and that you were actually pointing out that a quarter subtends a different angle at a different distance. At that point he's arguing one point and you are focused on a separate issue without either of you being aware of that fact.

You responded that he was wrong, but again, apparently either missing or ignoring that what his focus was had to do with was calculating probabilities based on the area the bullet could hit vs what it would have to hit to connect with the quarter. You quoted his explanation and calculations demonstrating why areas were required for the probablity calculation.

Based on how you responded, I looked back at his posts and yours and missed (as Shadow7D did) that you weren't actually involved in the probability discussion at all and that you were focused only on calculating the angle subtended by a quarter at various distances and were not catching, or were totally ignoring, the primary point of the Shadow7D's post and of his exchange with 1911 guy.

So I responded that Shadow7D was right about how to calculate the probabilities focusing on the area vs line issue which was the focus of Shadow7D's posts and his initial interaction with 1911 Guy which drew your attention.

Basically, you were having one discussion/argument while 1911 Guy, Shadow7D and I were in another one but none of us apparently noticed until now.

Short version:
You are right, a quarter subtends about 0.0912 MOA at 1000 yards and about 0.0834 MOA at 1000 meters. It's about 9% smaller (in MOA) at 1000 meters because the circumference of a circle of 1000 meters radius is about 9% larger than the circumference of a circle of 1000 yards radius. ;)

[1911 guy]

I appreciate Black Butte sticking up for me. My math on figuring the actual MOA was spot on.

However...

I admitted the "mea culpa" in post #21 based on faulty calculation of the hit probability, which IS based on the area in which the bullets will impact. The subtention is strictly a linear measurement, the hit probability is geometric.

Sorry for any confusion I caused.

And thanks for the vote of confidence, Black Butte.

[Black Butte]

Nowhere did I mention a probability. The statement "a quarter presents .0834 minutes of angle at 1000 meters and .0912 minutes of angle at 1000 yards" is completely clear on its face.

A probability calculation is meaningless here because it is dependent upon too many variables that cannot be determined with certainty (e.g., the skill of the shooter, the drag coefficient on bullet, the muzzle velocity, etc.). One can, however, calculate how much less of a target a quarter presents at 1000 meters as compared to the area it presents at 100 meters. This calculation does not require the use of an exponential. The number of steradians a quarter subtends at 1000 meters is 100 times less that the number it subtends at 100 meters. It's a simple ratio of squares because the surface area of a sphere is proportional to the square of its radius.

[Shadow 7D]

Ok, I failed trig 2 times
I was attempting to illustrate how MUCH SMALLER a quarter is compared to the area of 1.5 MOA (the suggested accuracy of a standard AR/M16) is at 1000 yards.

and you will note that I said on the assumptions to make a simple probability, to do a calculation like quarter flips, you have to make unreal assumptions and exclude human and environmental factors, along with such things as shot stringing from a hot barrel.

[JohnKSa]

Nowhere did I mention a probability. The statement "a quarter presents .0834 minutes of angle at 1000 meters and .0912 minutes of angle at 1000 yards" is completely clear on its face.Yeah, I tried to explain in detail that the misunderstanding arose less from what you said and more from the portions of the posts you selected to quote.

See below. In retrospect, we know that your response does not actually address anything in the portion of the post that you selected to quote, however while reading the post, it appears that the initial sentence of your is contradicting the material you quoted which had to do with areas and ultimately with calculating probabilities.

Originally Posted by Shadow 7D
Sorry, that's WRONG, you are dealing with area, so the difference is EXPONENTIAL, as the area of the quarter is circle of .955", within the 1.5 MOA (at 1000 METERS) So you are doing the difference of AREAS not diameters.
Response by Black Butte
Nope, 1911 guy is correct and you are wrong. A quarter presents .0834 minutes of angle at 1000 meters and .0912 minutes of angle at 1000 yards. Those are the facts.

It's quite reasonable to assume that if someone posts something and you select part of their post, quote it, and then say "you are wrong" that perhaps you intend your assertion to apply to the portion of the post that you quoted.

In this situation, that was not the case and that's how the misunderstanding arose.This calculation does not require the use of an exponential. The number of steradians a quarter subtends at 1000 meters is 100 times less that the number it subtends at 100 meters.100 meters is 10 times less than 1000 meters.

However, as you correctly point out, the area that is subtended by the quarter is 100 times less at the longer distance instead of just 10 times less.

The reason that is true is because an exponential is involved (10 squared=100). And that's because when you go from linear measurements to area measurements exponentials are involved.

[USMC8541]

A coworker once told me he could hit a grapefruit at 1k yards with his Vermont deer hunting rig. Total BS. Most non shooters tend to overestimate the distance on shots they have made and overestimate even more on shots they have missed. Truth is a decent marksman with a rack M16 that's doped in can hit a man size target at 500 yards 7 or 8 times out of 10 shots on a good day, overcast no wind.

[Black Butte]

The reason that is true is because an exponential is involved (10 squared=100). And that's because when you go from linear measurements to area measurements exponentials are involved.

The exponential function is not the same as squaring. The former is the inverse function of the natural logarithm and pertains to the constant "e." I appreciate all the effort you're investing, but you're not going to find any math mistakes in my posts. Maybe it's time to move on.

[JohnKSa]

The exponential function is not the same as squaring.The initial statement was along the lines that area increased exponentially even though the distance increased linearly. "The exponential function" is a special case of the use of exponents involving the base "e" which is approximately equal to 2.718281828..., but the word "exponential" in general usage is often used simply to note the fact that the relationship between two variables is nonlinear--that is, it involves exponents, not just addition or multiplication by constants.

To be strictly accurate, an exponential relationship is one where one variable is defined by a quantity involving a some value raised to the power of another variable. However, in common usage, it is understood that when someone says that there is an exponential relationship between two variable quantities (e.g. radius and area since: area = pi * radius 2 ) it merely means that the relationship between the two quantities can not be expressed linearly and requires the use of an exponent.

[Black Butte]

Again, the exponential function is not the same as squaring, no matter how badly you want it to be so. An exponential is not involved in solving for a ratio of the number of steradians a quarter subtends at different distances. Therefore, all my posts are correct.

[JohnKSa]

the exponential function is not the same as squaringOf course it's not. I'm not and never have been referring to "THE exponential function" which I correctly defined in my last post. Neither is/was Shadow7D. I very much suspect that you weren't either until you got caught trying to incorrectly claim that there was no need for exponents when relating linear distance to area measurements.

I say the latter because there's nothing in any of Shadow7D's posts or mine that says or even hints that anything related to this problem has anything to do with "the exponential function", natural logarithms, or the number "e". Nor is there anything else that anyone with a math background would interpret as such....no matter how badly you want it to be so.Why would I want such a stupid and ridiculous thing? Not only do I not want it to be true, I've not said anything that would indicate/imply/hint that I want it to be true. Just for absolute clarity, absolutely NOTHING I've posted on this thread (at least before you brought it up) had anything to do with "the exponential function".

"The exponential function" is one special case of the use of exponents, it does not, in any way, shape or form, define every possible use of exponents in the world of mathematics.

When you go from linear measurement to area measurement, an exponent (not "THE exponential function" which nobody but you is discussing) is required and that is what Shadow7D was trying to get across.Therefore, all my posts are correct.If you are trying to claim that the word "exponential" always and only refers to "THE exponential function" then that is incorrect.

The term "exponential", in general usage, accurately refers to anything involving an exponent, and since squaring something certainly involves an exponent, it is completely accurate to use the word exponential (not "THE exponential function" which is a special case of the use of exponents involving a particular base) in reference to such an operation.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/exponential

ex·po·nen·tial (ksp-nnshl)
adj.
1. Of or relating to an exponent.
2. Mathematicsa. Containing, involving, or expressed as an exponent.
b. Expressed in terms of a designated power of e, the base of natural logarithms.

[Black Butte]

you got caught trying to incorrectly claim that there was no need for exponents when relating linear distance to area measurements

Nope, I never made such a claim. What I said was that their was no need for an exponential. You just got caught fibbing.

I see that you had to go back and correct your last two comments 38 minutes and 16 minutes after they were posted, respectively. I had hoped your "corrections" would have resulted in a higher degree of accuracy. I suspect your difficulty stems from not fully understanding what the exponential function is. I can help by providing you with a correct definition of the exponential function.

The exponential function is defined as the inverse function to the natural logarithm ln(x). The natural logarithm function, in turn, is defined as the definite integral of the reciprocal of t evaluated between an upper limit of the variable x and a lower limit of the constant "1."

Again, the exponential function is not the same as squaring.

You have been unable to affect any change in the status quo. My comments are correct as posted. If you remain determined to pursue your obsession of trying to prove me wrong, might I suggest you private message me rather than hijacking this thread and inconveniencing other forum members.

With kindest regards,

Black Butte.

[Driftertank]

But anyways, regardless of the semantics of a mathematical proof of the numerical likelihood of a lucky shot....

To the OP, in summary, your friend's full of you-know-what.

[d2wing]

As a person that actually was an expert with several weapons, he not only is full of BS, I doubt he was even in the military. The longest qualifying shots in my day were 600 meters, they were down to 400 with the M-16, Now I am pretty sure 300 meters is tops. If he is good and the stars align 50 yards is doable. 100 yards unlikely with a rack grade rifle. But I would'nt believe a thing he said and I'd find new friends. Ones you can trust.

[taliv]

4 pages is probably enough...