Blackcloud6
Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2002
- Messages
- 608
I think that since you gave him time to practice, he may well learn to do it. He has a chance.
Open sights - 1000 yards - $50
- Thread starter threeseven
- Start date
- Status
Daedalus
Member
The AK version - Run upfeild 800 yards and try. 
redneck2
Member
Rules of the game???
How many sighters???
How many chances???
Please post the results.
How many sighters???
How many chances???
Please post the results.
TimH
Member
One-Shot-One, your story reminds me of when I was 'bout 12. We were standing in front of my nieghbor house with our bb guns. I bet my best friend I could hit a cloths pin hanging on the line about 100' away. I hit it first shot. Pure luck of course but to this day we still joke about it.
cratz2
Member
Well, I have $50 that says no one that has never shot beyond 300 yards and that has never shot a specific rifle/load combo at all can't hit that target at 1,000 yards on the first shot with any 50+ year old cartridge and open sights. Or the second shot or the third shot...
With the ultimate reverence for high power shooters, most folks that I know that think they are pretty good at 100 yards get decidely less good somewhere around 500 yards.
With the ultimate reverence for high power shooters, most folks that I know that think they are pretty good at 100 yards get decidely less good somewhere around 500 yards.
Andrew Wyatt
Member
I could do it with my number 4 mk1.
ShaiVong
Member
If you can still get the ammo that the No4 Mk1 volley sights are calibrated for, does anyone have a source? I would like to see how far those things are accurate (relatively) with my Enfield.
You bring up a good point about the sights: if you arn't using the ammo they were designed for, the graduations mean nothing.
Another thing to notice is the graduations on the sight are an equal distance apart on the No.1 Mk.III, and close to that on the No.4 Mk.1. All of my mil-surp rifles are similar. Yet we know that the amount the bullet drops is not linear. With the graduations on the sight, you move the rear sight the same amount to go from 200 to 300 as you do to go from 800-900. Once you get up to the extreme ranges you can't even get a good cheekweld on the stock.
I am certainly no vintage rifle expert, but I have shot a number of my vintage rifles in matches where we engaged targets at various ranges. The targets were sheets of steel at known distances. I found that the sights were not all that close and soon gave up and just used Kentucky windage.
Another thing to notice is the graduations on the sight are an equal distance apart on the No.1 Mk.III, and close to that on the No.4 Mk.1. All of my mil-surp rifles are similar. Yet we know that the amount the bullet drops is not linear. With the graduations on the sight, you move the rear sight the same amount to go from 200 to 300 as you do to go from 800-900. Once you get up to the extreme ranges you can't even get a good cheekweld on the stock.
I am certainly no vintage rifle expert, but I have shot a number of my vintage rifles in matches where we engaged targets at various ranges. The targets were sheets of steel at known distances. I found that the sights were not all that close and soon gave up and just used Kentucky windage.
ShaiVong
Member
Yeah, I think thats why they're called "volley sights".. You just kind of lob the bullets in the general direction, and if you get enough chaps lobbing them in the same direction, you may hit something
Andrew Wyatt
Member
PMC duplicates MkVIz ball, and my sights are regulated for that.
ShaiVong
Member
Mine are vaguely regulated, but I need to switch out the front sight post... Of which i have no others.
LynnMassGuy
Member
Well, I know I could not hit it!
Well, 1000 yards is only half way up the scale on the SMLE Mk III sight (not the "volley sight") and I have found those sight settings to be pretty accurate. Given a good rifle, and good ammo, a decent rest and some practice, I think I just might take that bet, and I don't think his $50 would be safe at all.
Now if you say an average condition rifle with a so-so bore and ammo from Pakistan or some place, no bet.
FWIW, a 10 foot target at 1000 yards really is a LOT harder to hit than a 1 foot target at 100. Believe me. The 1000 yard shooters who use those huge rail guns are going for groups under 6 inches, not 10 feet.
Jim
Now if you say an average condition rifle with a so-so bore and ammo from Pakistan or some place, no bet.
FWIW, a 10 foot target at 1000 yards really is a LOT harder to hit than a 1 foot target at 100. Believe me. The 1000 yard shooters who use those huge rail guns are going for groups under 6 inches, not 10 feet.
Jim
RustyHammer
Member
What the bullet drop at a 1000 yards?
ShaiVong
Member
If shot point blank, 630 inches or 52.5 ft.
If you zeroed your rifle for 1000 yards, the bullet would peak at 248" around 600 Yards.
Thats about 20'
If you zeroed your rifle for 1000 yards, the bullet would peak at 248" around 600 Yards.
Thats about 20'
It's not how far you move the slide, it's the shape of the curve underneath the sight that the slide rides on.
Even though you move the slider on the sight the same amount for each 100yard (meter) increment, the sight moves upward a different amount due to the changing slope of the curved track under the slider.
But, all that means nothing if the ammo used isn't close to the estimates that the sight curve was based on.
Even though you move the slider on the sight the same amount for each 100yard (meter) increment, the sight moves upward a different amount due to the changing slope of the curved track under the slider.
But, all that means nothing if the ammo used isn't close to the estimates that the sight curve was based on.
Sunray
Member
1,000 yards on a 100 square foot target for a .303 Enfield is a piece of cake. That's a normal sized target for that range. It's the shooter that makes the difference. Wind, temperature, ammo, are incredibly important. Mind you, the 'off his arm' reference is confusing. If he thinks he's going to do it off hand, spend the fifty. It's your's.
ShaiVong
Member
John: The sight i'm thinking of is a micrometer (sp?). It just clicks straight up or down via a worm gear, and you stop it when the mark on the moving aperature is lined up with the desired mark of elevation on the side of the sight.
Edit: And the marks arent linear, though they arent as exponental or differential as you would guess. Now that is some math, figuring out those marks based upon distance, bullet drop, sight radius and velocity loss due to drag.
Edit: And the marks arent linear, though they arent as exponental or differential as you would guess. Now that is some math, figuring out those marks based upon distance, bullet drop, sight radius and velocity loss due to drag.
I stand corrected
John, I see exactly what you mean. It seems to crude a system to be accurate, but what do I know ?
ShaiVong, I believe you are talking about the sights on a No. 4. I see they aren't linear but they don't seem to be far from it either. Again, what do I know ? But it would seem like there would be a huge difference in the drop that must be accounted for.
I would love to see some people actually try this. I think it would be more difficult than many think. Of course one of the more difficult things would be knowing if you actually hit it without checking the target. I have a place to do the experiment; if I think about it, I might just go to the hardware store next week and buy a sheet of something and try it.
I do think the target is big enough that with enough shooting you would hit it. I also think it is big enough that once you got the sight dope you could probably hit it fairly often. However I have a hard time believing that very many people could simply pick up a strange rifle, fire one shot, and hit it. Even with my regular scoped deer rifle which I know is zeroed (my standard big game hunting zero) I wouldn't bet $50 I could hit it on the first shot. Based on those numbers mentioned earlier, it would seem that you might be aiming as much as 2x or 3x the height the target in Kentucky windage. And this isn't even taking into account wind or mirage. Of course if you knew you were making a bet like this, you could consult a chart or software to tell you the projected point of impact from your present zero and then dial in the appropriate number of clicks (assuming the scope has that much elevation without shimming the base) and this should put you within 10 feet.
I don't know, maybe it is easier than I think it is ? I guess there is only one way to find out for sure.
John, I see exactly what you mean. It seems to crude a system to be accurate, but what do I know ?
ShaiVong, I believe you are talking about the sights on a No. 4. I see they aren't linear but they don't seem to be far from it either. Again, what do I know ? But it would seem like there would be a huge difference in the drop that must be accounted for.
I would love to see some people actually try this. I think it would be more difficult than many think. Of course one of the more difficult things would be knowing if you actually hit it without checking the target. I have a place to do the experiment; if I think about it, I might just go to the hardware store next week and buy a sheet of something and try it.
I do think the target is big enough that with enough shooting you would hit it. I also think it is big enough that once you got the sight dope you could probably hit it fairly often. However I have a hard time believing that very many people could simply pick up a strange rifle, fire one shot, and hit it. Even with my regular scoped deer rifle which I know is zeroed (my standard big game hunting zero) I wouldn't bet $50 I could hit it on the first shot. Based on those numbers mentioned earlier, it would seem that you might be aiming as much as 2x or 3x the height the target in Kentucky windage. And this isn't even taking into account wind or mirage. Of course if you knew you were making a bet like this, you could consult a chart or software to tell you the projected point of impact from your present zero and then dial in the appropriate number of clicks (assuming the scope has that much elevation without shimming the base) and this should put you within 10 feet.
I don't know, maybe it is easier than I think it is ? I guess there is only one way to find out for sure.
My guess is that they just went out and shot a representative set of the rifles at each range and marked down the sight adjustments. The math would be formidable--probably not really tractable without a computer...
Well, knowing what we know about the individuality of rifles, it HAS to be inaccurate. Even if it works for one, it's going to be off for a bunch of them.
However, even as crude as it is, with the right ammo, I'll bet it will allow a good marksman to put a hit on a 10ftx10ft target at 1000yards.
For what it's worth, I don't own an Enfield. I do own a few milsurps though.
My 8mm Mauser and my AK use regularly spaced markings with a curve under the sight. The curves are quite obviously differently shaped.
My Swedish Mausers and my FAL use a linear ramp under the sight with irregularly spaced markings.
ShaiVong
Member
Theoretically though, once you zero it at 200 yards (closest on adjustable sight) by switching out differently sized front sight posts until it hits POI, the micrometer sight should be fairly accurate, assuming your using the 174grain bullet with the same BC and velocity as it was origionally designed for.
That is one thing I hadnt thought of though, shoot it untill it hits where its supposed to and mark it off . Sometimes the simplest solution is the best.
That is one thing I hadnt thought of though, shoot it untill it hits where its supposed to and mark it off
. Sometimes the simplest solution is the best.Sven
Senior Member
Cool bet - would love to learn how far off his shot is. I'd definitely go double or nothing for round 2.
Cosmoline
Member
If he's going to rely on tangent sights, he'd better make sure the ammo he's using is the same ammo used to set the sights. With a No. 1 that may not be the case. IIRC the .303 Ball for WWI was heavier than WWII Ball or typical loads today.
But you're right, 1,000 yard shooting is a whole different ball game. It isn't like hitting a 1' target at 100 yards. Even on a clear day optical distortions can make it exceedingly difficult to stay on target. And even a slight wind down range, one you may not even feel, can knock your bullet way off course.
But you're right, 1,000 yard shooting is a whole different ball game. It isn't like hitting a 1' target at 100 yards. Even on a clear day optical distortions can make it exceedingly difficult to stay on target. And even a slight wind down range, one you may not even feel, can knock your bullet way off course.
natedog
Member
Hitting a target the size of a king sized bed at 1000 yards? Doesn't sound that difficult.
- Status
