>According to the Army the 300 meter battle zero on an M16A2/A4 puts you 5 inches high at the highest pointnot great, not terrible>the 300 meter battle zero on an AKM puts you 12.5 inches high at the highest pointwhat the fuck?
>>64460183minute of enemy batallion accuracy, please understand
The chad set the AK sights to 1,000 meters drop charthttps://shooterscalculator.com/ballistic-trajectory-chart.php?t=abd01967
>>64460183>>the 300 meter battle zero on an AKM puts you 12.5 inches high at the highest pointFun fact: default Soveit sight setting was "P" (П) aka battle sight in Russian. It's 440 meters zero sight setting.440>300
>>64460228>seeing a human sized person who is trying not to be shot at 440 meters and putting accurate shots on them
>>64460183>doctrinally aim so low idiot mass conscript slaves are discouraged from spraying toward Narnia up in the clouds
>>64460228also are you sure that's the akm and not the ak74?
>>64460183Dont ever look up the m1903 battle setting (25ish inches high at the highest point with a 547 yard zero)
>>64460264lmao, fucking why?
>>64460239Oh wait. You are right, battle sight zero range PAK-74 440 metersAKM 340 metersAnyway 340 > 300. Dance!
>>64460288>12.5 inches high
>>64460300Target is 20 inches high
>>64460268
>>64460300it's actually 20 inches high with a 340m zero, lmao
>>64460318if you correct the data for the shitty wolf ammo that i used for the official stats for M43 then it's still 16" high
>>64460328Most common Soviet training target is 20 inches high >>64460307Soveit doctrine was set sights on p and forget. Aiming was done at lowest visible edge of the target. It has some sense allowing hitting targets without estimation of range, fiddling with sights settings or changing aim point. One setting, one aim to rule all conscripts.
>>64460355this sets very low expectations of marksmanship from the get-go, that's probably why soviet doctrine has failed horrifically in every conflict it's been tried in.
>>64460355>>64460370on the one hand, that's how M16s work too, you set the battle zero and just use that.on the other hand, why bother including graduations if you are just going to use the battle sight?
>>64460384how much does the M16 battle zero deviates from point of impact again?
>>64460183>M16Aim at the CENTER OF MASS, not the upper chest, aim at the CENTER of a human fucking bean and get back to me.>AKThe Soviets/Russians trained their troops to fire at the belt, and guess how large the average neck to waist area is? It's fucking larger than 12 inches.
>>64460234>on themat them. you just have to scare them into immobility.
>>64460390Marine Manual says 4.5 inches. I don't think the army manual is significantly different. the Marines and Army technically use 2 different zeros due to autism. The Army uses a 300 meter zero and the Marines use a 300 yard zero. You will sometimes see this written as a 25/300 meter zero and a 36/300 yard zero. https://www.trngcmd.marines.mil/Portals/207/Docs/wtbn/MCRP%203-01A.pdf300 meters is only like 330 yards so that's maybe a 10% higher deviation, if that, which would put it at like 5 inches
>>64460426the two apertures are also elevated slightly differently, so 0-2 ghost ring is zeroed for closer range compared to the standard small ring
>>64460415so what you're saying is that you can just go prone to become invulnerable to soviet fire? good to know.
>>64460442no one uses the ghost ring. in theory it exists for night sights but the front sights were never issues en mass so no one uses anything but the 300m small aperture. red dots are also zeroed at 25/300m for the army and 36/300 yards for the marines
>>64460444I was going to say it's not as bad with the ak74m, but then I remembered someone itt said the ak74ms zero is 440 meters and russians are so poor they still use AKMs because they have that huge m43 stockpile
>>64460234>accurate when everything around him is destroyed does it matter?
>>64460384>on the other hand, why bother including graduationsMostly for long range fire.But setting sights for anything but P and direction of that fire under Soviet doctrine was done by commanding officer or NCO.He should announce target, direction and sights settings.If commander don't tell you that then you don't touch sights.
>>64460384>on the one hand, that's how M16s work too, you set the battle zero and just use that.There are some difference.M16 battle sight are set at shorer range and aimed center mass. Height trajectory (5 inches) Is much smaller thant typical target (chest silhouette). It provides better hit probability within battle sight range against chest target, and much better hit probability against head target.Soveits set battle range at longer range, and aimed lowest edge. Trajectory height 16" is comparable to typical target (chest silhouette) . Such would provide less hit probability, especially against small targets (head). But it extends range of fire without doing any calculations and aim adjustments.
>>64460518I should add similar difference was in tanks battle sights too.American tank battle zero is aimed center mass and trajectory height is half tank height, therefore battle zero range is short.Soviet battle sight was aimed lowest edge of the target and trajectory is full tank height (2 meters, tank height minus clearance). Battle zero range is higher but hit probability is lower in edge cases, and that zero completely flops against hull down target.
>>64460539>and that zero completely flops against hull down target.amazing how soviets designed things to completely fail against their most probable expected targets
>>64460518the range extension isn't even that pronounced since center mass zero actually extends past your actual zero distance because you still have half the target below the aiming point, meanwhile soviet zero at the lowest edge is the furthest aiming point unless you start aiming high instead.
>>64460539on that note, how did ww2-era German sights work in regards to the target position? soviet sight designs were largely copied from those post-war.
>american thing betterUHHH WELL IT DOESN'T EVEN NEED TO BE THAT GOOD ANYWAY ALSO DRONES
>>644602201,000 meter top down attack mode, not problem.
>>64460234We don't wear glasses.
>>64460555Trips of truth.
>>64460183It's a close range round and an excellent one, for long range there's 7.62x51. 5.56 isn't good at close or long range and you need a long ass barrel to actually get fragmentation.
>>64460444>you can just go prone to become invulnerable to soviet fire?You are statistically speaking less likely to be hit by a soviet soldier with an AK-74 if you closer then the 440 meters battle sight range at some ranges.
>>64460597>It's a close range round and an excellent one>5.56 isn't good at close range
>>64460603440m is horrible.Why didn't they just go with 300m and enjoy the benefits of 2nd gen intermediate cartridges???
>>64460597>>64460625Neither of you actually understood the post you're replying to.
>>64460732soviets always double down on their own retardation, see also: muzzle brakes on AK-74
>>64460183While the AK is technically capable of hitting targets at 300 yards, it was not a serious expectation of the rifle. The rifleman was just supposed to keep the target pinned while the PKs, SVDs, RPGs and platoon/company level assets did the actual killing.
>>64460802Standart pop up targets on soviet shooting train/qualification ranges were 200-300 meters for AKM300-400 meters for AK-74 With long range target been full standing silhouette, short range chest target.
>>64460802>while the PKs, SVDs, RPGs and platoon/company levelAnd Soviets didn't have PK in Infantry. It was RPK/RPK-74 Insquad, RPG-7 didn't have fragmentation round and was trained and supposed to use against AFV targets only.High levels of firepower were supposed to be BMP/BTR guns, not infantry small arms.
>>64460597Pretty much this. At close range 5.56 just goes right through which is why you have to use an entire magazine to put someone down at under 100 meters. This is why Ukraine abandoned all the NATO small arms they were given and are scrounging for AKs: It was taking them 30x as much ammo to take out an unarmored enemy compared to Russia even when they hit them. When you add in the superior quality of Russian body armor it sometimes takes multiple mags to kill one pushing the lethality of the rounds into the ratio of 100-1 oblast even for rounds that hit. They would literally be better off with old Nagants instead of 5.56 but NATO arms (((merchants))) need to steal taxpayer money to enrich themselves while the people starve and shoot each other in Walmart parking lots. Hopefully they will use 5.56mm so their are minimal losses to the abandoned American working class.
>>64460563I don't either but a guy is only as thick as the front sight post of an M16a2 at 300 meters and smaller at 440m
>>644605975.56 is better than 7.62x39 at close range. m193 fragments off a 16 inch barrel, see kyle. if 7.62x39 is a close range round, why is the battle sight 300 meters?
>>64460603>probability of a hit improves after 400 metersthis is like that army M16A2/M855 report that calls the M16a2 garbage
>>64460555lmao
>>64461041Kyle killed 2 commies at close range. m193 fragments. m885 might icepick. ukraine uses AKs because they are poor and have a ton
>>64461159Anon, i fear you may not be a clever man.
>>64461140Do you even have any idea why they posited that it improves?
>>64461362I get that the russian thing is extending the max range and the M16A2 with M855 extends the max range because you can adjust the bdc in the sight base and M855 has more mass so it has more momentum. The point was the army doc said it was retarded because no one engages at 400+ yards without magnification anyway >>64461170you're a gayman
>>64461454The army doc just says that the hit probability is higher at 440m than 300m because the rifle is fucking zeroed at 440m and is missing at 300m because it's shooting high.
>>64462406yeah, no shit, ESL. the point I'm making, is like in the Army's A2 doc, no one engages with rifles past 300 yards anyway
