Old Military Rifles with Iron Sights Calibrated to Several 100 m

[perryg114]

I was just wondering why old Rifles like my Swedish Mauser start at 300m and end up at 2000m when you probably can't kill a man out past 200 yrds (approx 200m) with iron sights. I had to build up the blade at the end of my barell to even sight in for 100yrds. Even with a high powered scope 2000m is really pushing it.

Perry

 

[USAF_Vet]

the 2000m setting is an old tactic called barrage fire. It's not meant to be used for direct fire into an enemy, but as an indirect barrage from an entire company throwing lead downrange in hopes to take out some of the bad guy before they really got into a decent range.

Direct fire is more than capable of killing an enemy at 200 yards and beyond. USMC basic rifle training with the 5.56x45 requires targeting out to 500 yards on a human sized target with open sights. It's doesn't take immeasurable amounts of skill.

 

[Cosmoline]

I think part of it was psychological warfare, as well. These rifles were designed during the great military buildup prior to the Great War. Each great power expected examples of its new smokeless rifles to be examined by rivals. Putting more and more numbers on the tangent sights made them more impressive. And imagine some soldier finding one of those and seeing that the other guys have rifles that can shoot you at 2,000 meters or more.

By WWII the sights tended to be set for closer ranges at the lowest setting. Though you still had doctrines of "aiming at the gut" and the "battle sight" setting at 300 meters or so that would permit a COM-aimed shot to hit on target anywhere from point blank to 500 or 600 meters.

 

[Hardtarget]

I've wondered that myself. Maybe they were trained to set for 300 meters and just aim for the belt buckle when the enmey got close!

As for the exaggerated distance? I don't know...maybe just "great expectations" on the part of the generals.

I've got an M1 Garand. I'm not sure how many clicks of elevation are available because my club range is only 200 yds. I'm sure I have lots of room left when I adjust for that.

I'm sure that younger, better eyes than mine can make consistant hits at greater ranges than I will ever do. I read an account of U.S. soldiers making multiple kills at 800 yds with Springfields/Enfields against German troops. Probablely didn't happen often.

Like I said, will not happen in my hand.

Mark

Your question was answered while I was typing...and better,too.

 

[Keb]

Swiss K31

Sandbagged with a telescopic equipped spotter, elevated up 12 clicks,
I hit a six foot metal gong three times in eight shots at 1200 yards.

Imagine volley fire into an enemy encampment.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

I have a 2' x 3' gong at 600 yards and a 8" x 18" gong at 300 yards where I shoot and I am able to hit both with regularity merely by adjusting the elevation on the range adjustments on my Mosins, K-31, Mauser, and for the 300 yd one my SKS's so don't poo-poo the accuracy of those devices. That is with the original iron sights so many folks around here are quick to criticize....

 

[Slamfire]

I was just wondering why old Rifles like my Swedish Mauser start at 300m and end up at 2000m when you probably can't kill a man out past 200 yrds (approx 200m) with iron sights. I had to build up the blade at the end of my barell to even sight in for 100yrds. Even with a high powered scope 2000m is really pushing it.

I suggest reading about the British experience in the Boer War before believing too firmly that 200 yards is a maximum range with irons.

I heard a British expression, supposedly from the Boer War “keep away from Officers and white rocks”. Boer riflemen engaged and killed Brits from 600, 800 yards with iron sights. I assume they would use white rocks to zero in at range.

Camp Perry “Rattle Battle” was shot with 03’s using BAR’s as sweepers. The 03’s used the battle sight (zero 547 yards) at 600, 500, 300, and 200 yards.

Basically pre WW1 rifles had sights that the zero was based on hitting a man out to 800 yards by aiming at the belt line. The rifle cartridges of the era were very powerful and the trajectory was as flat as pressures and powder would allow.

Skill full riflemen with irons could engage targets at distances that modern's cannot conceive of engaging with anything but scopes.

Scopes are better, but back then, not many scopes were around, they were big, bulky, easy to break, external adjustments, and they did not have the coatings we use today.

Extreme ranges, such as 1200, 2000 yards, this was volley fire range.

Unfortunately it took lots of training to raise the skill levels of troops to where they can engage targets at extreme distance. Training requires money, and troop training has a low priority compared with money spent on major weapon acquisitions. It is all about the money, so troops today are not expected to engage targets much beyond 200 yards and are trained accordingly.

 

[gun addict]

cant kill anyone out of 200 yard with ironsites? Tell that to the Marine riflemen who shot the Germans to pieces at 800 meters during the battle of Belleau Wood

 

[rcmodel]

At that time, the first machinguns were considered much the same as artilley, to be used for indirect fire over hill & dale.

In otherwords, plunging fire into massed troops 1500 yards or more away by firing up in the air like a howtzer.

It was only later that the military brass finally figured out a better use of the machinegun was direct aimed fire at closer range.

That direct fire lead to no-mans land between the trenches in WWI.

rc

 

[d2wing]

Volley fire can be more important than direct fire. Consider in most battles hundreds of rounds can be fired with light casualties. Unfortunately not always the case. Back in the 60's qualifying ranges went to 600 meters. About 20 % could hit those pop-ups from prone position iron sights issue M-14s. The Qualifying range for M-16 was reduced to 400 meters. Expert was easy at that range with those rifles. That said in battle if you actually saw someone to shoot you you might not get a chance to aim. For that purpose we were taught quick kill. Sorry am maybe off topic, Happy New year. Oh now I remember using a an M60 for suppressive fire. You raked tree lines etc where the enemy was to keep them from getting closer or getting free shots at you even if you couldn't see them.

 

[ToraBoraBlues]

Slamfire, the Boers would also place white rocks at known distances from defensive positions.

Interestingly the Brits learned the value of many modern infantry tactics (khaki vs. red uniforms, dispersed formations, marksmanship) in the Boer war that helped the BEF turn the tide of the German offensives in 1914.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

Somewhere around here I have what amounts to a "circular" printed for AEF troops in WWI relating among other things to the use of the extreme ranges on the rifles in the case of information of massed troops in the open being passed to line commanders from spotters in aircraft or balloons.
The ground commanders would be given the observed ranges and relative azimuths and volleys of indirect fire could then be rained upon the hapless malingerers as an alternative to artillery fire.

 

[Fred Fuller]

For one historical account see http://www.militaryrifles.com/Turkey/Plevna/ThePlevnaDelay.html

 

[HorseSoldier]

Swedish Mausers and other weapons from that generation were designed for pre-WW1/pre-machinegun tactics where enemy targets were expected to take the form of troops in formation, or at least open order, and crew served artillery operating in the direct fire role.

Volley fire, as was mentioned, was an effective tactic to engage a massed formations.

The British did learn some valuable lessons in the Boer War about how technology was redefining the battlefield back at the turn of the last century, but it really took until WW1 and mountains of casualties to really force people to learn the lesson.

 

[Caliper_Mi]

300yd is the battle sight zero. Yes, anywhere within 300yd, aim center mass and hit the enemy... somewhere on their chest/torso. Doesn't matter too much if it's in the shoulder, the gut or the hips when you are at war. Beyond that, you are using the adjustments to compensate for range. Yes, 2000m/yd and further markings on sights are intended for volley fire / area suppression. But iron sight hits aren't that hard for a trained rifleman out to 500yd at a minimum. That's only 4moa shooting to hit a 20" target at 500yd. I have personally hit a 20" target at 400yd using nothing more than a sling, A2 sights and M855 ammo. Get out to a Project Appleseed shoot in your area, they will teach you the skills needed to do the same. (full disclosure: I am an Appleseed instructor)

 

[Hacker15E]

you probably can't kill a man out past 200 yrds (approx 200m) with iron sights.

Says who?

There are generations of soldiers and Marines who think -- and have been trained and proven -- otherwise.

 

[perryg114]

Well the average weekend plinker can't kill someone with 1 shot at 200yrds. Yeah I am sure with multiple shots and lots of practice one can do better. If you have multiple targets, I guess it does not matter which target you hit. At 100 yards a 1'x1' target is about the same width as the front sight.

 

[Hacker15E]

Well the average weekend plinker can't kill someone with 1 shot at 200yrds.

Well, you asked "why old Rifles like my Swedish Mauser start at 300m and end up at 2000m when you probably can't kill a man out past 200 yrds".

Given what you say here, I suppose the answer is that they weren't designed for use by "the average weekend plinker" -- they were designed as a military arm for use by trained soldiers.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

I don't understand your comment about the front sight obliterating a 1' square target. I have a wide selection of WWII war rifles and even the widely criticised (by some) Mosins, SKS's, and other round post rifles don't even come close. Even if they did, remember you are supposed to place the top of the post just BELOW the targeting point so as long as the target, the post, and the rear sight are all centered you should be able nail it dead center. Sounds like you might be suffering from a case of inadequate range time.....

 

[Caliper_Mi]

At 100 yards a 1'x1' target is about the same width as the front sight.

So? First off, these rifles were not designed for groundhog hunting, they were designed for a 18-20" wide target. Even so, when shooting out at 400yd, the front sight will be wider than the target. The 8moa front sight on my AR has never held me back from shooting a group much smaller than 8moa. You just center the target on the front sight post. Most of these iron sights would have been zeroed for a 6:00 hold so the target would be placed just above the front sight in the sight picture. Like some have said, "hold on the belt buckle".

 

[highpower]

When I go to the range all I see anymore is bench shooting. Shooting your rifle from a seated bench position is only really good for sighting in. From what I have seen, there are very few "average plinkers" that can hit anything unless they have a solid rest and a chair to sit on.

 

[gdcpony]

Average weekend plinker? Well, my younger daughter has prove this wrong. A friends old Mauser, old frying pan and 250yds. Three shots off the tailgate of my truck= three distinctive clangs. Oh and she was ten.

Watch what you say as she is offended now as she liked that rifle. LOL

 

[Hacker15E]

When I go to the range all I see anymore is bench shooting. Shooting your rifle from a seated bench position is only really good for sighting in. From what I have seen, there are very few "average plinkers" that can hit anything unless they have a solid rest and a chair to sit on.

Definitely a different topic than this thread, but have to say I heartily agree. I am usually the only one shooting rifles offhand at my range, too.

Don't understand it...but people derive different pleasure from different elements of the sport, so different strokes....

 

[bfoosh006]

Remember.... medical care at that time frame.... well sucked. So any wound was very life threatening. Add into that "Bullets" raining down on your position, and you have a pretty effective psychological weapon.

Our military even did it with the 45/70 ....http://www.researchpress.co.uk/longrange/sandyhook03.htm

That test decided that the 500gr 45/70 bullet was good for 3,350yds.....

After the Sandy Hook tests of 1879, a new variation of the .45-70 cartridge was produced, the .45-70-500, which fired a heavier 500 grain (32.5 g) bullet. The heavier 500-grain (32 g) bullet produced significantly superior ballistics, and could reach ranges of 3,350 yards (3,120 m), which were beyond the maximum range of the .45-70-405. While the effective range of the .45-70 on individual targets was limited to about 1,000 yards (915 m) with either load, the heavier bullet would produce lethal injuries at 3,500 yards (3,200 m). At those ranges, the bullets struck point-first at roughly a 30 degree angle, penetrating 3 one inch (2.5 cm) thick oak boards, and then traveling to a depth of 8 inches (20 cm) into the sand of the Sandy Hook beach*. It was hoped the longer range of the .45-70-500 would allow effective volleyed fire at ranges beyond those normally expected of infantry fire.

 

[I6turbo]

As others have pointed out, there was a lot of longer range firing done in WW2 -- they often didn't wait until the enemy was up close. There is a huge range of estimates on how many small arms cartridges were fired per WW2 kill, but even at the lowest claim I've seen (approximately 15,000 rounds fired per kill) it's clear that there was a lot of errant lead flying. (The number or rounds produced by the US for WW2 is often reported at about 300,000 per kill, but this includes ammo that was lost, wasted, stored, captured, etc.)