morons used to put the sights at 1000 to increase the power level of their AK. Was a big selling point for them. If you would have offered an AK with sights up to 5.000 yards you could have sold almost a billion AKs in Africa alone. Russian marketing is at a genius level.
Nah, just some instances in Africa of uneducated tribals using AKs. There isn’t much of a selling point when the only countries supplying guns to these factions are communist nations.
The rationale is volley fire from massed infantry. You can't possibly expect sufficient accuracy for shooting a Mosin-Nagant or a Mauser at a person 2000m+ away, but if you have say 100 dudes with Mosins or Mausers trying they will create a beating zone around that target and eventually one of the bullets will hit. The same rationale was moved forward to the AK, since it doesn't really cost anything to add graduations on the sights for 1000m volley fire and theoretically you can have a situation where a bunch of dudes with AKs have to at least try and suppress an enemy position well beyond their effective range.
I'd not be able to name an incident with a precise measurement but you know over in Afghanistan there's plenty of cases of "Oh no that PKM is opening up on us and we can't respond back". It's just hard for me to imagine being able to see anyone at 1000 meters. Imagine seeing someone 9 football fields away.
>Has there been any documented cases of this actually happening though?
See:
Yes. The 1903 Springfield was specifically adopted because there were battles in the Spanish American War where the Spanish army armed with Mausers being able to out range the Americans armed with Krag rifles. The British encountered a similar problem during the Second Boer War and were originally going to replace the Lee Enfield with something more powerful but were stopped by the outbreak of WWI. Before the introduction of machine guns, volley fire from the average infantryman filled their role.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1903_springfield >During the 1898 war with Spain, the Mauser M1893 used by the Spanish Army gained a deadly reputation, particularly from the Battle of San Juan Hill, where 750 Spanish regulars significantly delayed the advance of 15,000 US troops armed with outclassed Springfield Krag–Jørgensen bolt-action rifles and older single-shot Springfield trapdoor rifles. The Spanish soldiers inflicted 1,400 casualties on the US in a matter of minutes. Likewise, earlier in the day, a Spanish force of 540 regulars armed with the same Mauser rifles, under Spanish general Vara Del Rey, held off General Henry Ware Lawton's Second Division of 6,653 American soldiers and an independent brigade of 1,800 men for ten hours in the nearby town of El Caney, keeping that division from assisting in the attack on the San Juan Heights. A US Army board of investigation was commissioned as a direct result of both battles. They recommended replacement of the Krag.
, that's how wars used to be fought before WWI brought about the large scale use of machine guns and where artillery and bombs became the primary source of casualties on the battlefield rather than the infantryman's rifle. Fire from infantry rifles was by and far the main cause of casualties into the late 1800s.
Today, it's comparable to how bayonets are still issued, except sights like that add very little bulk and cost vs a bayonet.
>Fire from infantry rifles was by and far the main cause of casualties into the late 1800s.
Nope. That was still artillery fire since at least the Napoleonic Wars. One roundshot cannonball can go through FORTY (40) men.
And not to be that guy but you surely meant to say >by and far the main cause of [combat] casualties
because until the advent of antibiotics disease was the biggest killer overall.
>Nope. That was still artillery fire since at least the Napoleonic Wars.
Nope. During Napoleonic wars all attempts to estimate causalities agents established that musket ball was about 80% casualties. Though it should be pointed out data was not complete (first complete and statistically proper casualty agent study was done by US in WWII). Still there are no other data. People mismatch past WWI era with previous era. Before WWI infantryman musket ruled the battlefield.
There's some footage from afghanistan of royal marines taking indirect fire from AK's where taliban are just lobbing rounds from miles away. I think it's a series with embedded journalist Chris Terril, but fuck knows which episodehvh2n
The long distance sights on stuff like bolt actions has its uses
When my grandfather was fighting Arab tribals the Arabs would fire from the hills every night using the max sight position to rain plunging fire onto the air base that a Lee Enfield couldn't effectively respond to until a Bren or Vickers opened up and scared them off
I think they mean as in accuracy by volume: if your target's so far away that the sights are just a suggestion, then the person slinging bullets out at ~500rpm is going to have an easier time hitting it than a couple of men with bolt-actions.
Vickers guns don't use the same ammo as enfield rifles. Vickers used Mark VIIIz which has a max range of 4km. If you use Mark VIIIz in an enfield or bren (which guys did) it would erode the riffling
Machine Gunnery involves cones of fire, while a bolt gun is just one round at a time. With no optics mgs with a cone of fire are better at longer ranges than a rifle with irons . With irons on a rifle and a competent shooter you're looking at like max 300-500 meters. With a machine gun you're getting point targets with irons 400-800 meters. Now with optics it's a bit different. A gpmg with optics and a dmr with optics in the same cartridge are very comparable in effective range with the big difference being using a cone of fire verses a more persise shot.
a ton of early 1900s pistols had sights that went out to 1000, and rifles that went out to like 1500. There isn't really any extra production cost or weight/complexity associated with making that style sight go out to 20 miles so why not?
Yes. The 1903 Springfield was specifically adopted because there were battles in the Spanish American War where the Spanish army armed with Mausers being able to out range the Americans armed with Krag rifles. The British encountered a similar problem during the Second Boer War and were originally going to replace the Lee Enfield with something more powerful but were stopped by the outbreak of WWI. Before the introduction of machine guns, volley fire from the average infantryman filled their role.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1903_springfield >During the 1898 war with Spain, the Mauser M1893 used by the Spanish Army gained a deadly reputation, particularly from the Battle of San Juan Hill, where 750 Spanish regulars significantly delayed the advance of 15,000 US troops armed with outclassed Springfield Krag–Jørgensen bolt-action rifles and older single-shot Springfield trapdoor rifles. The Spanish soldiers inflicted 1,400 casualties on the US in a matter of minutes. Likewise, earlier in the day, a Spanish force of 540 regulars armed with the same Mauser rifles, under Spanish general Vara Del Rey, held off General Henry Ware Lawton's Second Division of 6,653 American soldiers and an independent brigade of 1,800 men for ten hours in the nearby town of El Caney, keeping that division from assisting in the attack on the San Juan Heights. A US Army board of investigation was commissioned as a direct result of both battles. They recommended replacement of the Krag.
>We were exposed to the Spanish fire, but there was very little because just before we started, why, the Gatling guns opened up at the bottom of the hill, and everybody yelled, “The Gatlings! The Gatlings!” and away we went. The Gatlings just enfiladed the top of those trenches. We’d never have been able to take Kettle Hill if it hadn’t been for Parker’s Gatling guns.[17]
>Col.Theodore Rooseveltlater gave much of the credit for the successful capture of the Spanish positions atop the heights to Parker's inventive use of his Gatling Gun Detachment: "I think Parker deserved rather more credit than any other one man in the entire campaign... he had the rare good judgment and foresight to see the possibilities of the machine-guns. He then, by his own exertions, got it to the front and proved that it could do invaluable work on the field of battle, as much in attack as in defense."[26]Roosevelt observed that the hammering sound of the guns raised the spirits of his men: "While thus firing, there suddenly smote on our ears a peculiar drumming sound. One or two of the men cried out, 'The Spanish machine guns!' but, after listening a moment, I leaped to my feet and called, 'It's the Gatlings, men! Our Gatlings!' Immediately the troopers began to cheer lustily, for the sound was most inspiring."[27][28]
>Before the introduction of machine guns, volley fire from the average infantryman filled their role.
Correction: before the introduction of modern artillery
artillery didn't keep up with small arms tech design in the second half of the 19th century, so during the time between the civil war and WWI armies absolutely used rifles with vollysights as indirect fire because they could fire farther than cannons at the time could and there are records of things like the bohrs doing it to the bongs and the cubans doing it to the Americans
If you can't hit your target at 1000 yards it's time to trade in your guns for a vibrating dildo.
Remember when people used to say shit like turn in your man card? It was cringe then too.
Volley sights are for suppressive fire against area targets. Infantry not hitting a point target at that distance, they're for throwing lead in the general direction and statistically some unlucky guy moving around gets hit when they're engaged by a squad. This isn't done in the context of modern warfare but they're there for when they're needed.
Ive heard it argued that the AK is a rifle designed with "defense" in mind vs. the AR which was designed with "offense" in mind (lighter rifle, lighter ammo, easier logistics for fighting abroad)
if youre fighting on familiar territory, you can have ambush positions planned out that take advantage of the adjustable sights, even if its inaccurate at that range, you can still harass enemy troops at range.
The existence of effectiveness and accuracy of modern smokeless full power ammunition led to the open order formation that could not be diminished by volley fire. The human element not the weapon is the weakness to volley fire that led to 1000 meter iron sights being wasteful.
Get ten guys with decent marksmanship. Give each one a bone stock AKM and a full 30 round mag. Place a 3/4 ton pickup truck as a target, 1000 yards away.
They will put a decent number of each mag into such a target. Enough that the light skinned truck will probably be damaged to the point of limited function or outright unable to drive.
its a retarded hold over from line infantry days. Between the invention of the Minié ball and the deployment of modern machine guns and artillery in WWI the meta literally was to just line a bunch of dudes up and have them volley fire from 1km or more away
Constructor's pride? I doubt it. Gunsmiths and engineers aren't stupid, they know what their guns are capable of doing. But I do think that sometimes their customers made silly demands and they simply agreed to do what the customer asked regardless if it made sense or not.
For example during the days of the British Raj the various Indian princes would compete with each other to show off the most bling, same as any other aristocracy. The Mahraja of Jodhpur famously commissioned a bunch of gold-plated high end guns from Charles Lancaster in England. Picrel is an absurd example. This is a 4-barrel rifle which has sights going out to 1000 yards. The idea that this rifle would actually be useful at that distance is absurd, but hey, that's what the customer asked for so that's what the customer gets.
morons used to put the sights at 1000 to increase the power level of their AK. Was a big selling point for them. If you would have offered an AK with sights up to 5.000 yards you could have sold almost a billion AKs in Africa alone. Russian marketing is at a genius level.
Nah, just some instances in Africa of uneducated tribals using AKs. There isn’t much of a selling point when the only countries supplying guns to these factions are communist nations.
The rationale is volley fire from massed infantry. You can't possibly expect sufficient accuracy for shooting a Mosin-Nagant or a Mauser at a person 2000m+ away, but if you have say 100 dudes with Mosins or Mausers trying they will create a beating zone around that target and eventually one of the bullets will hit. The same rationale was moved forward to the AK, since it doesn't really cost anything to add graduations on the sights for 1000m volley fire and theoretically you can have a situation where a bunch of dudes with AKs have to at least try and suppress an enemy position well beyond their effective range.
Also, height-over-bore compensation
>Verification not required
Has there been any documented cases of this actually happening though? wouldn't the bullet at 1000m be a hell of a lot less lethal, too?
i keep seeing this as the reason for 1000m iron sights and it's also broought up in mosin threads. but never seen any testimonials of it happening
pic related, lots of AKs in this war
I'd not be able to name an incident with a precise measurement but you know over in Afghanistan there's plenty of cases of "Oh no that PKM is opening up on us and we can't respond back". It's just hard for me to imagine being able to see anyone at 1000 meters. Imagine seeing someone 9 football fields away.
Or 67 alligators away
>Has there been any documented cases of this actually happening though?
See:
, that's how wars used to be fought before WWI brought about the large scale use of machine guns and where artillery and bombs became the primary source of casualties on the battlefield rather than the infantryman's rifle. Fire from infantry rifles was by and far the main cause of casualties into the late 1800s.
Today, it's comparable to how bayonets are still issued, except sights like that add very little bulk and cost vs a bayonet.
>comparable to how bayonets
so only use they see is in PrepHole fantasies and hfy fanwank
even in Ukraine trenches they prefer to magdump at point blank.
>Fire from infantry rifles was by and far the main cause of casualties into the late 1800s.
Nope. That was still artillery fire since at least the Napoleonic Wars. One roundshot cannonball can go through FORTY (40) men.
And not to be that guy but you surely meant to say
>by and far the main cause of [combat] casualties
because until the advent of antibiotics disease was the biggest killer overall.
>Nope. That was still artillery fire since at least the Napoleonic Wars.
Nope. During Napoleonic wars all attempts to estimate causalities agents established that musket ball was about 80% casualties. Though it should be pointed out data was not complete (first complete and statistically proper casualty agent study was done by US in WWII). Still there are no other data. People mismatch past WWI era with previous era. Before WWI infantryman musket ruled the battlefield.
Wouldn't it be 11 football fields?
>wouldn't the bullet at 1000m be a hell of a lot less lethal, too?
7.62x39 bullet is lethal till 1500m.
There's some footage from afghanistan of royal marines taking indirect fire from AK's where taliban are just lobbing rounds from miles away. I think it's a series with embedded journalist Chris Terril, but fuck knows which episodehvh2n
Git gud.
Eh, why not? It's a nice round number and it's not like it's an expensive or difficult component to produce.
The long distance sights on stuff like bolt actions has its uses
When my grandfather was fighting Arab tribals the Arabs would fire from the hills every night using the max sight position to rain plunging fire onto the air base that a Lee Enfield couldn't effectively respond to until a Bren or Vickers opened up and scared them off
'twas all In good fun
>enfield couldn't
>but bren and vickers could
>both 303
I think they mean as in accuracy by volume: if your target's so far away that the sights are just a suggestion, then the person slinging bullets out at ~500rpm is going to have an easier time hitting it than a couple of men with bolt-actions.
Plus a MG is a lot scarier than a rifle
Vickers guns don't use the same ammo as enfield rifles. Vickers used Mark VIIIz which has a max range of 4km. If you use Mark VIIIz in an enfield or bren (which guys did) it would erode the riffling
Machine Gunnery involves cones of fire, while a bolt gun is just one round at a time. With no optics mgs with a cone of fire are better at longer ranges than a rifle with irons . With irons on a rifle and a competent shooter you're looking at like max 300-500 meters. With a machine gun you're getting point targets with irons 400-800 meters. Now with optics it's a bit different. A gpmg with optics and a dmr with optics in the same cartridge are very comparable in effective range with the big difference being using a cone of fire verses a more persise shot.
Its better to have it than not need it, than need it and not have it.
The point is to shoot unaccurate shots. It very likely wont hit but at least the distance is right.
The main position is 100-200 meters and shouldnt be changed even the enemy is less than 100 or even 300
a ton of early 1900s pistols had sights that went out to 1000, and rifles that went out to like 1500. There isn't really any extra production cost or weight/complexity associated with making that style sight go out to 20 miles so why not?
Some rifles had special volley sights that went far past that range. The volley sights on the side of this Lee-Enfield go out to 2800 yards.
were volley sights ever actually effectively used in combat?
Yes. The 1903 Springfield was specifically adopted because there were battles in the Spanish American War where the Spanish army armed with Mausers being able to out range the Americans armed with Krag rifles. The British encountered a similar problem during the Second Boer War and were originally going to replace the Lee Enfield with something more powerful but were stopped by the outbreak of WWI. Before the introduction of machine guns, volley fire from the average infantryman filled their role.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1903_springfield
>During the 1898 war with Spain, the Mauser M1893 used by the Spanish Army gained a deadly reputation, particularly from the Battle of San Juan Hill, where 750 Spanish regulars significantly delayed the advance of 15,000 US troops armed with outclassed Springfield Krag–Jørgensen bolt-action rifles and older single-shot Springfield trapdoor rifles. The Spanish soldiers inflicted 1,400 casualties on the US in a matter of minutes. Likewise, earlier in the day, a Spanish force of 540 regulars armed with the same Mauser rifles, under Spanish general Vara Del Rey, held off General Henry Ware Lawton's Second Division of 6,653 American soldiers and an independent brigade of 1,800 men for ten hours in the nearby town of El Caney, keeping that division from assisting in the attack on the San Juan Heights. A US Army board of investigation was commissioned as a direct result of both battles. They recommended replacement of the Krag.
neat
How did TR get up San Juan Hill under volley fire?
They had fucking Gatling guns
>We were exposed to the Spanish fire, but there was very little because just before we started, why, the Gatling guns opened up at the bottom of the hill, and everybody yelled, “The Gatlings! The Gatlings!” and away we went. The Gatlings just enfiladed the top of those trenches. We’d never have been able to take Kettle Hill if it hadn’t been for Parker’s Gatling guns.[17]
>Col.Theodore Rooseveltlater gave much of the credit for the successful capture of the Spanish positions atop the heights to Parker's inventive use of his Gatling Gun Detachment: "I think Parker deserved rather more credit than any other one man in the entire campaign... he had the rare good judgment and foresight to see the possibilities of the machine-guns. He then, by his own exertions, got it to the front and proved that it could do invaluable work on the field of battle, as much in attack as in defense."[26]Roosevelt observed that the hammering sound of the guns raised the spirits of his men: "While thus firing, there suddenly smote on our ears a peculiar drumming sound. One or two of the men cried out, 'The Spanish machine guns!' but, after listening a moment, I leaped to my feet and called, 'It's the Gatlings, men! Our Gatlings!' Immediately the troopers began to cheer lustily, for the sound was most inspiring."[27][28]
Nice.
by outnumbering the Hispanics 20 to 1
>Before the introduction of machine guns, volley fire from the average infantryman filled their role.
Correction: before the introduction of modern artillery
artillery didn't keep up with small arms tech design in the second half of the 19th century, so during the time between the civil war and WWI armies absolutely used rifles with vollysights as indirect fire because they could fire farther than cannons at the time could and there are records of things like the bohrs doing it to the bongs and the cubans doing it to the Americans
If you can't hit your target at 1000 yards it's time to trade in your guns for a vibrating dildo.
Remember when people used to say shit like turn in your man card? It was cringe then too.
Volley sights are for suppressive fire against area targets. Infantry not hitting a point target at that distance, they're for throwing lead in the general direction and statistically some unlucky guy moving around gets hit when they're engaged by a squad. This isn't done in the context of modern warfare but they're there for when they're needed.
where is the П letter
Ive heard it argued that the AK is a rifle designed with "defense" in mind vs. the AR which was designed with "offense" in mind (lighter rifle, lighter ammo, easier logistics for fighting abroad)
if youre fighting on familiar territory, you can have ambush positions planned out that take advantage of the adjustable sights, even if its inaccurate at that range, you can still harass enemy troops at range.
The best defense is a good offense
>lighter rifle
>lighter ammo
That has been the trend of AK's too
The nname of that top rifle completely escapes me, and I'm fuming
Remington Model 8 (POE)
kinda funny that the AKs had adjustable sights and the M16A1 has a 2 position flip
Beg number=beeg bullet=big damage, pretty simple logic.
If you put the sights at level 10 it means the bullets hit harder. Not many people know this but its true.
The existence of effectiveness and accuracy of modern smokeless full power ammunition led to the open order formation that could not be diminished by volley fire. The human element not the weapon is the weakness to volley fire that led to 1000 meter iron sights being wasteful.
beating zones are not just for killing
Get ten guys with decent marksmanship. Give each one a bone stock AKM and a full 30 round mag. Place a 3/4 ton pickup truck as a target, 1000 yards away.
They will put a decent number of each mag into such a target. Enough that the light skinned truck will probably be damaged to the point of limited function or outright unable to drive.
I get it, but seems wasteful
its a retarded hold over from line infantry days. Between the invention of the Minié ball and the deployment of modern machine guns and artillery in WWI the meta literally was to just line a bunch of dudes up and have them volley fire from 1km or more away
Battalion volley fire. A tactic that has been used since bow warfare.
Next shitty thread.
Constructor's pride? I doubt it. Gunsmiths and engineers aren't stupid, they know what their guns are capable of doing. But I do think that sometimes their customers made silly demands and they simply agreed to do what the customer asked regardless if it made sense or not.
For example during the days of the British Raj the various Indian princes would compete with each other to show off the most bling, same as any other aristocracy. The Mahraja of Jodhpur famously commissioned a bunch of gold-plated high end guns from Charles Lancaster in England. Picrel is an absurd example. This is a 4-barrel rifle which has sights going out to 1000 yards. The idea that this rifle would actually be useful at that distance is absurd, but hey, that's what the customer asked for so that's what the customer gets.