Yo what's the point of these iron sights that go out to 800 metres? What are you even aiming at at that range? Is it any better than just guessing?
Engagements at 1km+ were not entirely uncommon in the very late 1800s/early 1900s. Boer War is a classic example, remember this is an age where field artillery had comparable range to infantry rifles.
>>65541860For shits & giggles I used the 600 metre setting on my HK91 to try to hit a 1 metre wide gong and various empty 100 lb propane tanks at a range I used to go to. Honestly, I didn't succeed too often and the successful hits were made when I used the bipod.
>>65541860The original idea was that if you knew the general position of the enemy that you could volley fire in a line to harass/pin down/whittle down enemy infantry as they approached you or you approached them
>>65541868That example is from 2019, I meant to say iron sights that still go out to these ranges
>>65541860>What are you even aiming at at that range?Your game, or the enemy.
when that was designed you got your ass kicked for wearing glasses and having bad eyesight
>>65541860suppressing fire?
If you've got a hundred allies and a hundred enemies, a 0.1% hit rate is way better than 0%.
>>65541860Center mass as always.
it makes the gun shoot harder
Its the original version of the horseshit we see with infantry rifles now. Army Generals get really hard thinking about every 95 IQ private of theirs having the ability to shoot someone's head off at 800 meters. Clearly we need to get the artillery nerds back in control.
>>65543561based African
>>65543566Fact Not a SINGLE Army development program for small arms has delivered a product superior to Eugene Stoner's AR-15 (later M16) that only came into military usage because of some Chair Force dude being impressed by exploding watermelonsIt was the best sacrifice of a watermelon humanity will ever know and the best small arm we will field until coil guns become feasible for jarheads
>>65541896>>65541860what >>65541868 said. field artillery (well mostly communications tech) lagged behind rifle tech after the Civil War/Crimea so rifles had the same effective range or greater effective range than artillery until the bongs or whoever invented indirect fired in WWI due to better coms tech.due to this you had retards literally standing in lines and volley firing from 600-1,000 meters during the boer war, the spanish American war and the various frog nazi shit going on in yurop. You couldn't use a canon because they'd just volley fire the canon. If you read Teddy Roosevelt's book his Rough Rider unit had a second unit with gatling guns attached to them and they used the gatling guns in place of artillery since the canons were heavy and useless and took to long to reaim and reset unless they were on like a permeant fort or a battleship >why do irons still go out to 800 minertia. The M16A1 had it right and it had a 2 position flip with either like a 300 yard zero and a 450 yard zero or a 300 yard zero and a night sight. The M16A1 300 yard zero is more or less the exact same flight profile as the 36m zero you see people talk about as the ideal AR zero online sometimes. It's not that expensive to add adjustable sights during peace time and the boomers want them on the rifles because the old rifles had them and also so they can do shooting competitions. But as seen with red dots and actual combat, if you're unmagnified you really only need a battle zero sight, maybe one other setting but just one point blank zero is fine and you're better off with a magnified optic with a BDC and ranging feature for the MG/DMR
>>65541895>>65542304which is based on a retarded boomer's retarded theory from Vietnam where the better option would have been to just add another MG to the group>>65542075it's hard to see someone that far even with 20-20 vision>>65543561>>65543568Kek, Chris Cocks said the africans did that in his rhodeasian book
>>65543572>the M16>goodHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>65543668
>>65543668you are third world
>>65541860They was MEN, back then.
>>65544649That gun is from 2019
>>65544787>>65541896Aren't those russian sites? that you just set it to that thing that looks like an n and it's 440 meters because russian sights are retarded
>>65541868During the Boar war you could have a platoon of British infantry volleying fire on a stand of trees with a sniper in it 800-1100 m away. Google volley fire from Lee Enfield rifles during Boer WarNuff said
>>65543572it do be like that, dont it. I expect a repeat situation with the M7, the air force will probably adopt some plastic-case Hicar M4 of their own accord and the army will follow suit while utterly memoryholing the entire NGSW.
>>65541860Best I ever did was 450 meters on an M16. The target looks like a little dot on top of the front sight post at that range. I probably got 2/5 at that range and half the time I was just guessing. 800 meters is insane. These dudes must have eagle vision or something.
>>65547592It happened in the Spanish American war too. They didn't have self righting artillery and they didn't have a way to do direct fire or organize troops in anything other than lines because lol no radios so the rate of fire for the canons was so slow if they tried to use them all of the artillery men would get volley fire raped
>>65547636they were shooting at other lines of troops or at like a tree or something. they were basically doing indirect fire or like when you just spray machine gun fire at an area and hope you hit due to the volume of bullets
>>65547721I get that artillery wouldn't be very useful in that context but were gun shields just not a thing? Seems like a simple and effective solution against volley fired bullets at max range.
>>65547790too much shit to carry around. you'd have to carry it to where ever you were fighting and no one would ever assault forts because fuck that shit unless they could do it with battle ships. It's why all of those napolian fights were out in the middle of nowhere instead of fort sieges. up until we had better artillery during WWI and then bomber planes armies would just bypass dug in troops whenever possible.That's also why those sieges would last so long during WWI and WWII, better to just let the other fags starve to death
>>65547804If volley fired bullets were truly such a huge problem for artillery, a ~60 kg gun shield doesn't sound like a lot when your total gun + carriage assembly already weighs more than a ton. Feels more like they really didn't need artillery like you're pointing out here rather than a weight issue.
>>65547815Are they going to wear the shields on their heads? they have to move around to load the artillery. they have to drag the canon there, load it, aim it, fire it, reload it, reaim itand while doing all that they're getting shot at and possibly attacked by cavalry
>>65541860The same thing a machine gun a tripod started doing in later times
>>65541879>>65542075>>65544649>>65547636They used to eat more vegetables and not stare at screens all day.
>>65548307The sad part is that I can’t even tell if this is serious or not anymore.
>>65548319Serious or not it is true.
>>65543668>he said seethingly
>>65547592Britain was at war with boars?
>>65545097They are but it's just 1-8 it's perfectly reasonable.
>>65551671God bless Indians. In less than a decade they have advanced the cause of racism by hundreds of years.
>>65552003Boars, Emus, Opium, Roses, ears of people named Jenkinanglos will declare war on pretty much anything
>>65552003yeah and they lost too because yuropoor men are retarded cowards>>65552005idk if the commies have the retarded national match shit we do. either way they're setting it to their retarded n setting that shoots like 18 inches high and never touching the sights again
Not all shots are meant to be accurate. Cover fire, suppression fire, even being able to harass the enemy positions by landing shots next to them from far enough that they can't retaliate effectively. Being able to do that up to 600+ meters at the small cost of adjustable irons is worth it.
>>65548307>>65541879I fucked up. I meant to say I used the 400 metre setting. The range I was shooting at is 600 metres.And you're right on both counts.
>>65553132that's what machine guns are for, not rifles>>65553253idk what the comeups are for 400m to 600m on a .308. I know for a 20 inch AR-15 going from 100m to 200m is 1 moa (that's why an acog doesn't have a separate aiming spot 200 m, because the chevron is more than 1 moa thick already) and the come up for 200 to 300 is 2 moa. that's why you'll see the drop 3 thing with the M16 iron sights where guys add 4 moa to the bottom end, even though it's kind of meh. the M16A1 default peep was a better profile. It peaks at like 3.5 inches high at like 170ish yards and then hits 3.5 inches low at 300 yards and doesn't deviate more than 3.5 inches up or down over that whole distance. I think it hits like 7 inches low at 350 yards/300m, but that's still a center mass hit
>>65541860It's far better than just guessing. Seeing the target is a challenge at 800m, but a person standing is possible. Or more likely a group of soldiers or a vehicle or window on a building. The closest range to me only goes out to 400 yards, but I regularly shoot 10" steel with irons at that distance and land every shot on target unless the wind is very gusty. 6" is doable if the mirage and wind aren't too bad. I wear glasses and It can be hard to see the 6" gong clearly, but if you know generally where it is then you just center the sights over it and can hit most of the time. It's amazing to me how few people actually learn to shoot with irons properly. They work really well.
>>655533502 of my 3 rifles have iron sights only on them and red dots and magnified optics are better than irons
>>65553320You're retarded. Every soldier in an infantry squad is supposed to be able to do those things. Not all soldiers carry machineguns.
>>65554492>dial your rifle sights mid combat and remember you dialed them and then waste all your ammo firing pot shots at 600 yardsnah, you're a fucking retard. every study from like WWI until we adopted the ACOG shows that soldiers aren't hitting enemy troops past 300 yards without a magnified optic. that's why most engagements are within 300 yards and why the M16A1 didn't have dialable sights. everyone just uses the battle sight on their rifle and never adjusts it.
>>65547986What am i looking at here?
>>65554618its an infograph like this showing what the term looks like.
>>65554455Depends on what you mean by better. Red dots are certainly faster, especially under poor lighting conditions. Magnified optics are better at longer ranges. But with good light, irons are far more accurate than red dots inside of 200-300 yards unless you have uncorrectably bad eyesight or just don't practice enough.
>>65554618they had a LT. or some other officer tell his unit where to fire and then measured the dispersion and how far off the LT could fuck up the ranging and still get effective fire >>65554741>But with good light, irons are far more accurate than red dots inside of 200-300 yards unless you have uncorrectably bad eyesight or just don't practice enough.bull shit. I've shot the same rifle with cuckhorns, irons and a red dot and my groups were better with a red dot. not only were they better with a red dot it was quicker to require the target and shoot a second shot and I had better situational awareness lining up 2 things is easier than lining up 3 things. even applesneed requires people who shoot with a red dot to score 10% higher than someone shooting with irons
>>65541860You were always going to hit everything you were aiming at at 200 meters either. 800 at least makes the enemy put their heads down
