what can an m16 do at 1000m

[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

 

[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 expert

If 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!

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 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.