Yeah--i do screw that up now and then...
The original range finder, it's right in front of you.
- Thread starter 1911 guy
- Start date
- Status
Garandimal
member
The GI front sight on an M1 rifle is 0.084" wide.
Which subtends ~ 24" at 250 yds., ...the width of a man's shoulders.
Or, ~ 28" at 300 yds., ...the width of a man carrying a rifle.
GR
Which subtends ~ 24" at 250 yds., ...the width of a man's shoulders.
Or, ~ 28" at 300 yds., ...the width of a man carrying a rifle.
GR
Last edited:
MarshallDodge
Member
wst38tx
Member
I took the US Army rifle training with an M1 on the pop-up target range, the longest was 600 or 650 yards - long ago. Iron sights, I shot expert. We also trained on the 45, which was with the one-hand stance in those days. What memories! The one thing I'll never forget was shaking that 45 and wondering if all that rattling meant the barrel might fly off when we shot it. Now no one seems to be able to shoot without a scope or red dot or something. I can't imagine why you'd need a scope for only 100 yards. Reminds me of my grandkids who can't operate a map, have to have an address to put into their phone or they can't get there.
Some may remember Roger Clouser writing extensively on this very subject for Precision Shooting Mag. with his lined front sight handgun systems (Elmer Keith-like)...and especially Ed Woszika's excellent 10ish pg. article, "How to Shoot Your Pistols Accurately at Extremely Long Range". Great stuff!
About 200 yards beyond your MPBR, and just over the top of your head.
The point being that people hit things with rifles BEFORE the technology evolved. Does the new stuff make it easier? Of course. But does that mean that one shouldn't understand and embrace the basics that have begotten todays tools? Hell no I say. The naysayers remind me of my nephew who doesn't know how to make a call on a rotary phone.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,888
Let’s not pretend 450-500 yards is even scratching the surface of long range shooting.
There’s no magic to holding over at short or midrange where a 50yard estimation error is less than half of the size of the target (torso).
MarshallDodge
Member
Sure they hit things 100 years ago but distance records are being set everyday because of technology.About 200 yards beyond your MPBR, and just over the top of your head.
I'll continue to use tech to put me at unfair advantage
Last edited:
Peakbagger46
Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2009
- Messages
- 1,467
Yup. Now try to do any of the above while under stress...
You make a good point. But you are assuming you can see where your rounds are hitting. In real life you don’t know if you’re high or low.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,888
“Accuracy by volume,” area denial, suppressive fire, etc are all great strategic tools for military use. In a sniper vs. sniper hypothetical game, however, when one holds an iron-sighted rifle and the other more modern equipment, the latter has extreme advantage. It’s not so difficult to out-maneuver “luck.”
entropy
Member
It's no accident that naval gunfire got a lot more accurate with the introduction of optical rangefinders that started to be used in WWI, and then the analog computers, plus better optical ranging, of WWII. Long range riflery has had similar advances.
Hjalkarsson
Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2020
- Messages
- 36
Hjalkarsson
Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2020
- Messages
- 36
100 yards is 300 feet, is 3600 inches.
3600 inches x TAN(1/60)= 1.0471975 inches
so much for that.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,888
You must not read very well.
0-400m, well within the 0-500 yards I just cited above when our other misguided user claimed “200 yards past your MPBR” as long range - recognizing very, very few cartridges on the market have a reasonable MPBR longer than 300yrds. When you’re talking 500 and less, or the 400m cited on that card, if you aim at a man, you’ll hit a man. Worst case, you’re holding top of head and still impacting torso. The task is far more difficult due to the influence of iron sights and distance on group size, but the range has almost nothing to do with it. 1) You’re not shooting long range at only 400m or 500yrds, and 2) hitting a man-sized target, even a torso, is a far larger standard than most of us live by in civilian applications - when we see data on infantry performance of 20,000 rounds fired per combat kill, and we recognize hitting a body isn’t the same thing as hitting a heart.
But what I really find silly is your retort to the OP:
“So much for that?” Are you really going to stand upon a difference of less than 2/10,000ths of an inch per hundred yards and pretend your post is meaningful? What devise are you pretending to use in this fantasy land which accurately measures group size or impact displacement down to the 10,000th? Or down to the 10,000,000th, as suggested by your last digit? What rifle are you pretending to be shooting which will shoot so finely anyone would be able to tell a difference of less than 2/10,000ths? Are you really standing up on 8 significant figures, measured in a system with literally NO significant figures? What device did you use to measure between the back of your eyeball to the front sight - how many sigfigs in precision did that device offer? It had better offer more than 8, and had better measure down below the 10,000ths place, as must the device you used to measure the width of the front sight blade. Further, what rifle are you pretending to shoot with such precisely refined sights which would allow a shooter to correct for less than 2/10,000ths per 100yrds such knowing the difference between your Our error even shooting 1,000 yards will rarely expose the difference between IPHY and MOA, such our sights or optics are rarely actually a full click of adjustment in error - which is an error literally more than 200 times larger than that which you’re extolling. So if we’re living within the bounds of a .047”/100yrds error, I think we’ll be fine ignoring 0.0001975”/100yrds. Hell, even confirming your claim is a feat of engineering in itself - you’d have to be measuring your range to within ~2/3 of an inch per 100yrds to prove the difference between 1.047”/100yrds and 1.0471975”/100yrds - not sure the cost to measure to this extreme precision is worth the moot exercise, since your sights or scope can’t adjust to it, and you can’t confirm you actually have meaningful digits in your calculus anyway...
“So much for that.” Much ado about nuthin’...
Hjalkarsson
Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2020
- Messages
- 36
are you a Democrat? because you can't read and you retort was silly.
entropy
Member
Ad hominem attacks do not prove your point. And no, varminterror's comment "you must not read well" was not ad hominem, it was based in the fact that the reading you presented did not support your position, and indeed undermined it. The Vintovka Dalnomer shown in the Mosin Nagant range card do indeed show a very basic method of 'rangefinding ' with the front sight, BUT what if the soldat was issued an M91, who's front sight was much narrower than a 91/30's, or an M44, whose front sight, while the same exact part as the M91/30's, was effectively wider due to being about 7 inches closer, or the enemy 'in sight' was much taller than the average Soviet soldier (quite likely, Germans tended to be taller, as there were fewer smaller ethnic groups in Germany than Russia. That 'Dalnomer' probably caused many a Russian soldier's death as he or she shot over the Greamn they were facing, and they returned accurate fire with their Mauser. We had one one our sight in targets when I was in the Army. I ignored it, and concentrated on learning how to accurately estimate distances without having to use my front sight.
entropy
Member
<crickets chirping, distant groans>
- Status
