What's the point (C&R rifles) ?

[Snowdog]

While looking at my recently purchased 91/30, I noticed the graduated sights were marked to 2000 meters. I've notice most of my WWI/WWII military surplus rifles have sights that will adjust to insane distances.

I'm curious as to why? Surely they didn't believe they would be able to accurately engage the enemy at 1500-2000 meters. My guess is that it was primarily intended for harassment, to fire preemptive volleys at advancing troops to hamper their progress.
Is this what they were used for or did the manufacturer honestly believe the rifles they produced were quite capable of accuracy to these ranges?

Also, I noticed my 1918 Swedish M96 sports sights that are marked to 600 meters. I'd imagine that rifles such as the K31 or M44 were believed to be capable of hits to at least 1000 meters, the M96 should be too. Did Sweden simply subscribe to different engagement strategies/philosophies?

Another question would be what one would expect from a 7.62x54 or 6.5x55 slug if it were to make it to the 1500-2000 meter target with any accuracy. Certainly the bullet would still possess enough energy to injure, but I can't see it having much oomph left after transcending those ranges. I can vaguely see a heavy 198gr 7.29x57 or 140gr+ 6.5x55 still retaining some lethality at these ranges due to their excellent BC, but I seriously wonder about the ability of cartridges such as a 148gr 7.62x54 at these same ranges. Heck, when my 91/30’s sights are adjusted to 2000 meters, the rear sight is elevated so high that's nearly impossible to attain a cheek weld.

So, were these sights issued with the rifle to prevent one's armed forces from becoming out-ranged, primarily for harassment or actually used to snipe individual soldiers over vast differences?

 

[Dave Markowitz]

They are a vestige of when volley fire was a tactic. Military inertia is probably what's responsible for their retention after the widespread adoption of machineguns.

Note that we still haven't escaped this. The sights on the M16A2 are graduated to 800M, which is utterly ridiculous.

 

[c_yeager]

Well, if you have a bunch of guys lobbing fire at you from 800 yards it would be NICE to know that you can at least TRY to aim at them. A lot of guys firing at the properly sighted in distance could at least provide some suppression.

 

[DMK]

but I seriously wonder about the ability of cartridges such as a 148gr 7.62x54 at these same ranges

A lot of the x54R deployed was 172gr. to 200gr heavy ball. The Finnish for example used a 200gr. D-166 bullet in WWII. I don't think the lighter 147ish grain bullets became popular until late in the war and postwar when the M44s were widely deployed.

 

[Gewehr98]

What's the point?

Easy. People knew how to shoot back then. Volley fire was one thing. Aimed long-range fire was something else, and the two concepts should not be confused with each other.

Case in point - our own M1903 Springfield had a minimum battle zero of 547 yards, or 500 meters. Not that there are a lot of leftover WWI veterans out there who can hop into THR now, but the weapons qualifications then were considerably different than now. Hostile targets were expected to be engaged way out there, and the 1903 was considered entirely adequate for Camp Perry use out to 1000 yards, in fact it dominated for many years.

Volley fire was an addendum to the long-range aimed fire discipline. As a matter of fact, if you find an earlier British NoIMkIII SMLE, you'll find a separate set of volley fire sights mounted on the left side of the forend.

As time progressed, target engagements either got closer, or military weapons manufacturer realized that the earlier sight settings weren't the best for close-in engagements. Either way, both the WWII U.S. M1 Garand and M1903A3 rifles, and many of their European battle rifle counterparts, scaled back on their sight settings. Military tactics had changed since the turn of the 20th century, and rifle sights had changed accordingly.

Later, the jungle warfare pattern of Vietnam reinforced the use of short sight settings and intermediate-powered cartridges as seen on the M16 family. More ammo could be carried in a lighter package with less recoil, because you didn't need to hit something with a lot of energy way out there.

Now, with events in both Afghanistan and Iraq, we're seeing the return of the 7.62mm NATO (.308 Winchester) M14 as limited issue, with scopes mounted on them to maximize effectiveness out to 800+ meters. In some respects, we've come full circle.

Every now and then, a bunch of old farts like myself throw what are called "vintage military rifle silhouette matches", the targets being set up at 500 meters. You'd be surprised how well folks do with the old Swedish Mausers, Mosin-Nagants, Schmidt-Rubins, 1903 Springfields, and Lee-Enfields, knocking over steel plates at that range with alarming regularity.

 

[Snowdog]

Thanks for the info everyone.

Gewehr98, your post pretty much validates my assumptions. Now I just have to find a range with 1000-1500 lanes to see how close I can get.

 

[Jim K]

There is not really a distinction between volley fire and long distance shooting, except that volley fire involves many troops firing at the same time (in a volley), while long distance firing may be done by single riflemen or a group firing individually. No one expected a rifleman to engage individual targets at much over 500 yards. But in the roughly 1900 period, riflemen were expected to lay down a volume of fire against enemy areas, sometimes even to use high angle fire against area targets (like a railway station or an enemy assembly point) that were not even visible to the firers. Such fire was rarely effective, but did impact morale, especially when someone on the receiving end was unlucky enough to be hit with what appeared to be a lightning stroke from the sky.

During and after WWI, machineguns took over the role previously assigned to mass rifle fire, and other weapons, like mortars, came into use for interdiction firing. So the long range "volley fire" concept went by the boards, along with the sights that were used to employ it.

(The idea of simply firing a large number of bullets in hopes of maybe, perhaps, sort of, possibly, hitting someone didn't end with WWI. I have seen pictures of "puff" cargo planes with mini guns hosing down the jungles in Vietnam. I have no idea what they hoped to accomplish and think that anyone hit must have been extremely unlucky.)

Jim

 

[Sunray]

Indirect fire is a more accurate term. Same method as volley fire, but used during W.W. I to engage targets at extreme ranges. More as harrassing fire than anything else. It was a throw back to when MG's didn't exsist and artillery was completely horse drawn.

 

[telewinz]

If you have a heavy machine gun firing at you with heavy ball ammo from 1500 yards away you might have an overwhelming desire to at least make him nervous with a few near misses, it don't cost anymore to at least feel you can defend yourself.

 

[RepublicanMan]

(The idea of simply firing a large number of bullets in hopes of maybe, perhaps, sort of, possibly, hitting someone didn't end with WWI. I have seen pictures of "puff" cargo planes with mini guns hosing down the jungles in Vietnam. I have no idea what they hoped to accomplish and think that anyone hit must have been extremely unlucky.)

Actually Jim, Puff can put a chunk of lead in every square inch of a football field in something like 3 seconds........if they were in the area they were most definitely hit. Amazing close air support from those things, now-a-days they're called AC-130 Spectres and they are still very much in use.

 

[albanian]

"Actually Jim, Puff can put a chunk of lead in every square inch of a football field in something like 3 seconds........if they were in the area they were most definitely hit. Amazing close air support from those things, now-a-days they're called AC-130 Spectres and they are still very much in use."

I have heard about these "Spectres". They have a computer program that randomly places shots so as not to duplicate and shots. They don't fire in any pattern but they will compleatly cover an area. You best bet is find a spot they already hit and stand there.

 

[threeseven]

I may be way off-base here but I have a theory regarding this. I think that atleast some of the logic behind the long-range sights is an attempt at providing a psychological for troops carrying the weapons. It would be comforting to believe, even incorrectly, that your weapon is capable of that kind of range and accuracy.

 

[355sigfan]

Note that we still haven't escaped this. The sights on the M16A2 are graduated to 800M, which is utterly ridiculous.
END

FALSE

Its not a trick to hit someone at 800 meters with an M16. The cartridge is weak out there but it will hit them. Its far from volley fire.
Pat

 

[Badger Arms]

Hmmm, at 2000 meters, you have a squad of men running. Your squad of, say, 12 gunners begins to fire rapidly using their volley sights. Let's assume the gunners are capable of shooting 25 rounds a minute, that's 300 rounds a minute from the squad. Assuming it hits within a 12' radius, 300 rounds a minute is going to do some pretty good hurting on anybody at that range. Now imagine a whole company doing the same thing. When the concept came into being, I'd imagine that Gettysberg-style battles were still doctrine.

 

[Detritus]

side thought about "Spectre"

remember seeing a patch or sign some place (possibly at the home of one of my father's co-workers who was in the inital deployment of the system) regarding the.. i think it was called "PAVE Spectre", the first ones to have the 105 howitzer onboard.
read something along these lines....

AC-130 + ("M" number of howitzer used) 105mm howitzer = World's largest sniper rifle.

supposedly to denote likelihood of a "one shot kill" on a russian 2-1/2ton truck....

regardless of if it was true, it's STILL a cool slogan.

 

[pauli]

how far out would the shooter be detectable from? say a rifleman is having a good old time plinking at an artillery battery from, oh, 1500 meters away. will they be able to tell where he is? how anonymous can indirect fire be?

 

[sendec]

supposedly to denote likelihood of a "one shot kill" on a russian 2-1/2ton truck....

it's true

 

[MarkDido]

The original "Puff" for "Puff the Magic Dragon" was a C-47 (DC-3) outfitted with mini-guns on the port side of the aircraft.

 

[Bullet Bob]

A lot of the long-sighted rifles were developed during WWI, which was often a war fought from trenches - you had plenty of time to dial in the (long) range.

 

[Tamara]

A lot of the long-sighted rifles were developed during WWI, which was often a war fought from trenches - you had plenty of time to dial in the (long) range.

Most all of the rifles used in WWI were developed long before WWI, though. Besides, the enemy's front line trench was rarely more than a couple hundred yards away, and in some memorable sectors of the front was within easy grenade tossing range.

The concept of volley fire dated back to the first gunpowder-armed troops. By the time of mass gunpowder armies in the 17th century, when the only way to hit someone with the smoothbores of the day much past 50-100 yds was with sheer dumb luck, battles consisted of you jogging all your columns around the battlefield to catch the enemy's guys, forming your columns into line, and shooting the other guy's line until it was softened up enough for a shock attack.

As rifled weapons came into general use, the military establishment completely overlooked their increased effectiveness in individual employment against point targets and said "Cool! We can deliver our volleys from further away now!" So, the American Civil War began with a display of classic tactics of the kind that had evolved in a nearly unbroken line from Maurice of Nassau to Gustavus Adolphus to Frederick the Great to Napoleon. When it became apparent that advancing in battalion columns against the massed fire of rifled breechloaders was a good way to get yourself shot to ribbons, troops on both sides began using tactics that would still be familiar today: pickets (LP/OP's), movement in dashes, et cetera.

Despite the fact that troops of the French and Prussian armies were armed with vastly more modern weapons than the rifle-muskets of the Civil War, they turned a blind eye to any lessons they may have learned from the first big industrialized conflict (indeed, Moltke scorned the very idea that there was anything to learn from "armed rabble chasing each other about in the wilderness.") The Austro-Prussian War and Franco-Prussian War were fought with weapons of the late 19th Century and tactics of the early 17th. When the tactics of Jena were applied to Sedan, the results were predictable and bloody. Flexible and forward thinkers that they were, the general staffs of the losing armies decided that their problem was (are you ready for this?) that their troops didn't charge into the massed, long-range rifle fire fast enough!

The end result was that the final rifles of the 19th Century were all set up for long-range shooting by fast-moving formations of infantry against other fast-moving formations of infantry, a situation that had only ever existed in wargames and in the minds of general staff officers...


FWIW, I looked through my milsurps:
Schmidt-Rubin M96/11, Mosin-Nagant 91/30, Mauser Kar. 98k, Chiang Kai Shek Mauser, M1916 Spanish Mauser, and M1896 Krag: 2,000 yds/meters
Eddystone 1917: 1,600 yds
Type 99 Arisaka: 1,500 yds
1869/71 Vetterli, Mosin-Nagant M44: 1,000 m/yds
M1896 Swede: 600 m
FR-8: 500m

 

[Detritus]

supposedly to denote likelihood of a "one shot kill" on a russian 2-1/2ton truck....

it's true

trust me i fully beleive it. also remember something else the same gentleman had. a shoulder patch depicting two buzzards on a limb, scroll above read "AC-130H" (the suffix may have been different) and a scoll below read "Paitence my @$$ I'm gonna Kill something"


as for the effectiveness Spectre and even the Spooky and Stinger (AC-119) aircraft, i seem to remeber a quote along the lines of "ineffective weapons are hated by your Troops NOT your enemy". and the NVA HATED the gunships.