The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: General

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 21, 2009, 04:11 PM   #1
savage1r
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2009
Posts: 313
Philosophy on tactics of the economical battle rifle use

I just want to throw my ideas out there and see what the rest of you think. In my shooting experience (which isn't extensive, but I've had this happen to me over and over), I've run into lots of shooters who go down to the range and completely obsess over getting 1-moa or sub-moa groups at 100 yards with their expensive, top of the line rifle, outrageously priced scope, and lovingly hand loaded ammo. And while I do appreciate the skill involved in getting those kinds of results, very few of these people I talked to has ever talked about how well they can hit targets 300 or even 400 yards out. Keeping in mind that the max anti-personnel effective range for "assault" rifles like the AR and AK styles is around 400 yards, what is the tactical advantage of someone sighting in and keeping their super expensive rifles at 100 yards? I'm going to just come out and say if someone is seriously thinking they they'll have a tactical advantage over a semi-auto/full auto rifle at that range that you're just crazy. I think that if anyone is going to get the best tactical advantage using a bold action (or semi-auto .30 cal) sniper rifle (with mil-dot scope) that they should be zeroing at 500 yards. This puts the shooter comfortably outside the effective range of anyone using a standard issue rifle and you have the flexibility (if you're using a mil-dot scope) of being able to shoot between 100 and 800 yards musing the mil-dot markers (using ballistics software on a pda/computer/iphone you can plot out where your bullets will hit on your vertical mil-dot posts).
Now, I'm saying not only should a person be shooting in this manner, but that one doesn't have to break the bank in the quest for this kind of accuracy. I know you're saying "Well stop talking out of your ass and put your money where your mouth is", and to that point I have. I purchased a $69.99 Mosin-Nagant 7.62x54r rifle, altered it to have a scope mount for around $150 (including the gunsmithing) and put on an existing scope I had which was a NcStar 3-9 zoom that I had purchased a while back for like $56. I already know you're saying "You might as well have bought an off the rack 30.06 or 30.08 instead of wasting your money", and yeah, I get it. My reasoning, however will save me $1000's in the long run and I have a lot of options regarding ammo. The 7.62x54r is cheap, if you buy in bulk (which is easy to do at Sportsman's Guide), you can get the ammo for as little as $0.17 per round compared to $0.46 on the low end to $1.50 on the high end per round on 30.06 or 30.08. Add to that fact that you can get everything from steel core, steel jacketed-steel core, lead core, 203 grain, and I'm sure a few others and the price for a tin of 440 will run you between $84 and $120. You will never find an equivalent of that for any of the standard caliber rounds anywhere. The counter to this has been said over and over, you pay for what you get and the reliability and consistency is what matters in long range accurate shooting and that's why premium loads go for so much (of course reloading is the most reliable and cheaper than buying the top shelf stuff). My counter to that is you are right, however, considering the economic times, unless you have a pretty good job, most people won't be able to go out to the range more than a few times a year.
Now I went out to prove my point that a cheap rifle, with a cheap scope and cheap ammo can be used effectively. Within the next week or so I'll be posting a video of some shooting The weekend before last was my first time shooting at a target beyond 200 yards, I was able to nail a steel target (3'x4' bison) at 480 yards consistently with my Mosin and my father's Dragunov (not the real drag, but the romanian PSL-54C). Last weekend I brought my camera to catch the hits at 480 and had a very benevolent spotter offer to spot my targets and after fighting the wind (between 5-10mph) was able to score 3 hits in a row at 1000 yards with out-of-the-tin 147gr bulgarian light ball. I believe the target was 3' diameter circular gong. It was definitely the hardest shots I had ever taken and there's no way I could have done it without a spotter.
I hope this sparks some good discussion, I will gladly take any constructive criticism and I am interested to hear what any of you may have to say.

Savy
savage1r is offline  
Old October 21, 2009, 04:34 PM   #2
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
well okay, you got an opinion and it seems a little strong but you raise some good questions.
Quote:
very few of these people I talked to has ever talked about how well they can hit targets 300 or even 400 yards out.
Not everyone wants to shoot that far and there are not that many ranges that support that.

Quote:
Keeping in mind that the max anti-personnel effective range for "assault" rifles like the AR and AK styles is around 400 yards,
More like 500 meters, at least according to the Marines but ok...

Quote:
what is the tactical advantage of someone sighting in and keeping their super expensive rifles at 100 yards?
I am not sure everyone is doing it for tactical reasons. Lots of people hunt with ARs and AKs. 100 meters is a good compromise range for hunting. 100 meters is also a very common outdoors range distance.

Quote:
I think that if anyone is going to get the best tactical advantage using a bold [bolt?] action (or semi-auto .30 cal) sniper rifle (with mil-dot scope) that they should be zeroing at 500 yards.
You don't see too many folks zero at that range. Zeroing at the range would be quite a chore for most folks. And why would they do it if they will never shoot that far?

Quote:
This puts the shooter comfortably outside the effective range of anyone using a standard issue rifle [here entails a long bit about a long range cartridge rifle vs. carbine] and yeah, I get it.
Yep, you are talking about a carbine vs. rifle. I am not sure what you mean by "tactical advantage". There are not too many carbine on rifle encounters in the US these days.

Last edited by MTT TL; October 21, 2009 at 05:05 PM.
MTT TL is offline  
Old October 21, 2009, 04:45 PM   #3
bhannah
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2008
Posts: 188
Maybe because everyone doesn't care about tactical advantage at the range.
These shooters who go down to the range and completely obsess over getting 1-moa or sub-moa groups at 100 yards with their expensive, top of the line rifle, outrageously priced scope, and lovingly hand loaded ammo have what is called a purpose built rifle, a rifle that was built and designed to do what it is built to do.

Quote:
I think that if anyone is going to get the best tactical advantage using a bold action (or semi-auto .30 cal) sniper rifle (with mil-dot scope) that they should be zeroing at 500 yards.
Again not everyone is concerned about this.

Quote:
(using ballistics software on a pda/computer/iphone you can plot out where your bullets will hit on your vertical mil-dot posts).
And you were saying optics were priced high?

Quote:
I know you're saying "Well stop talking out of your ass and put your money where your mouth is", and to that point I have. I purchased a $69.99 Mosin-Nagant 7.62x54r rifle
Great rifle, but you will not be shooting the same groups as the guys you are complaining about.
You are trying to compair two different types of shooting...
Like saying you could run a nascar race and win because you know how to drive..
bhannah is offline  
Old October 21, 2009, 05:38 PM   #4
savage1r
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2009
Posts: 313
Granted

First of all, I apologize for my mistake in effective range on the AR's, I'm sure what you quoted is the correct distance. Yes I do understand that most people who are shooting for getting the best shots out of their guns at 100 yards and that it has nothing to do with the tactical situation I described. To me it seems that zeroing at 100 yards is a good standard for getting your scope dialed in and testing various different loads of ammo. Beyond that, I think that if people are really going to compete in shooting competitions, it should be a competition that is truly challenging. I find it much more exciting to see how well someone would shoot at 500 yards + than at 100 because the difficulty factor is MUCH higher. As far as ballistics software being expensive? iSnipe for the iPhone is like $6 at the app store and if you have an old palm like me, there's a program out there that's for free and does a decent job.
I know there aren't any tactical situations in the US, I suppose it would be more of a consideration. It's my opinion (axxhole jokes appreciated here), that if you're going to have a high powered rifle, you should use it like one. I understand that most ranges top out at 100 yards, and of course I don't expect everyone out there to go do what I'm suggesting, I just think it's not taking the rifle to it's fullest potential. Like I said before, I'm only bringing this up because I haven't heard long range shooting discussed much and I wanted to get people's opinion on it.
savage1r is offline  
Old October 21, 2009, 05:50 PM   #5
smith357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 19, 2005
Posts: 270
I'm one of those that completely obsess over getting 1-moa or sub-moa groups at 100 yards with their expensive, top of the line rifle, outrageously priced scope, and lovingly hand loaded ammo. Only so that when I get to 3 5 and 800 yards I know it's not the rifle or ammo missing the target and can squarely lay the blame on my ability to dope the rifle.

Oh and my battle rifle of choice is a vintage commercial Mauser in .30-06
smith357 is offline  
Old October 21, 2009, 05:58 PM   #6
comn-cents
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2008
Location: Pac.N.W.
Posts: 1,804
Because some people (not you) like to shoot little groups at 100yrds. It's their hobby. Reloading to find just the right combination, hobby. Hanging out at the range, hobby. Talking about what they like to do, hobby.
Building and owning nicely crafted firearms, hobby.
I could honestly say if I was a BG and hiding from these people and you I would rather you be shooting at me then them at 100yrds.
I'm also guessing with in the next 25-30 shot's your cheap scope it doesn’t work right anymore.
__________________
Be Smarter Than A Bore-Snake!
comn-cents is offline  
Old October 21, 2009, 06:08 PM   #7
Abel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 26, 2006
Posts: 1,161
I would agree with the scope comment. A minimalist philosophy should never exclude decent glass. In my opinion, decent glass starts at about 150 dollars. Burris, Nikon, Leupold.
Abel is offline  
Old October 21, 2009, 06:13 PM   #8
HorseSoldier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: OCONUS 61°13′06″N 149°53′57″W
Posts: 2,282
If you know how to use a mil-dot reticle, engaging targets at 100 or 500 isn't terrifically significant. The school house answer for military sniping zero range isn't 100 or 500 . . .
HorseSoldier is offline  
Old October 21, 2009, 06:15 PM   #9
AK103K
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2001
Posts: 10,223
My guess about the 100 yard obsession is, most people dont have access to ranges that allow shooting past that. With that, many have never shot past that, and dont have, or understand the skills needed to shoot past that.

Another issue is, the bench. Most people I see shoot, even when longer ranges are available, use the bench to shoot those cool little groups. If you cant shoot well from a field position, regardless what you kind of rifle you have, then your really not a rifleman, just a recreational shooter.

As far as being out of range, what happens when you have people opposing you, who understand the maneuver concept of warfare?

Shooting at well defined, static targets in the open at distance, is a bit different than shooting at small, fleeting targets moving on you in bounds, while their companions provide covering fire in turn, as they each move in turn. Not to mention those who your probably not paying attention to who are flanking you while your being distracted.

Long range, accurate shooting, at targets that might shoot back, and especially at targets that dont know your there in the first place, is really best left to people who have support, and hopefully, the other side doesnt, they might not even bother to come see you if you keep annoying them.
AK103K is offline  
Old October 21, 2009, 06:19 PM   #10
zombieslayer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,198
Well, I like tight groups, but for a "battle rifle" Its not crucial to shoot moa. I have a couple guns that do, but consistency is more important in a fighting weapon. My .308 will shoot pretty consistently and the heavy bull barrel heats up slow. I can hit pretty good out to 300+ yards. Need more Ammo to practice!
zombieslayer is offline  
Old October 21, 2009, 06:26 PM   #11
savage1r
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2009
Posts: 313
Optics

I will definitely concede the optics part, even though not going for the $150+ is doable, I can attest that it causes a lot of problems. I wouldn't mind getting a good scope, but I don't want one that's too long, bulky or heavy as I think it'd take away from the usefulness of the rifle.
savage1r is offline  
Old October 21, 2009, 06:29 PM   #12
bhannah
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2008
Posts: 188
I can gaurentee you that those guys could take your nagant and out shoot you with it. To get one hole groups at 100 yards is a challange. It sounds like you have never done it. Give it a try.
Put down the I-snipe and pull the trigger you will be a much better shot...

Quote:
If you cant shoot well from a field position, regardless what you kind of rifle you have, then your really not a rifleman, just a recreational shooter.
What an asinine statement that is. If you can't shoot the way I shoot well you just suck LOL ... give me a break...

Quote:
Shooting at well defined, static targets in the open at distance, is a bit different than shooting at small, fleeting targets moving on you in bounds, while their companions provide covering fire in turn, as they each move in turn. Not to mention those who your probably not paying attention to who are flanking you while your being distracted
Ok there G.I Joe where have you "trained" with incoming fire... LOL... please..
Again these bench rest shooters could care less about tactical shots..
bhannah is offline  
Old October 21, 2009, 06:57 PM   #13
davlandrum
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Lane County Oregon
Posts: 2,547
ummm - if you can shoot tiny groups at 100, you get small groups at distance.....versus a big group at 100 which will translate to a huge spread at distance...

just a thought.
__________________
U.S Army, Retired

Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do. -Potter Stewart
davlandrum is offline  
Old October 21, 2009, 07:05 PM   #14
bfoosh006
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 17, 2009
Posts: 1,088
http://appleseedinfo.org/....check out the link it may interest you.
bfoosh006 is offline  
Old October 21, 2009, 07:11 PM   #15
AK103K
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2001
Posts: 10,223
Quote:
What an asinine statement that is. If you can't shoot the way I shoot well you just suck LOL ... give me a break...
Well, yea, that pretty much sums it up.

I take it your one of the "bench" experts?
AK103K is offline  
Old October 21, 2009, 07:14 PM   #16
savage1r
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2009
Posts: 313
Difference of preference

bhannah, I think at this point it's just a difference of preference, I recognize that shooting shot after shot through a single hole at 100 yards is very difficult, I even mentioned it in my post and I'm not really knocking people who do that because that's what they enjoy doing, I was more frustrated because until I found a range that was longer than 200 yards it seemed that that was the ONLY challenge out there and for me, trying to get in the same hole at 100 yards doesn't get me as excited as it used to (not that I ever did it as well as the next guy). So we disagree on what each of us prefers as a challenge and that's cool, to each their own. I was just excited to be able to hit a target at 1000 yards, that was a big personal accomplishment for me and I think it'd be a cool competition for people to hit those gongs way out there.
savage1r is offline  
Old October 21, 2009, 07:18 PM   #17
savage1r
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2009
Posts: 313
Appleseed

Bfoosh006,

Yeah, I've always wanted to go to Appleseed but they're never in my direct neck of the woods so it's not an option, but I would jump at the chance to go if they ever came through.
savage1r is offline  
Old October 21, 2009, 07:22 PM   #18
bfoosh006
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 17, 2009
Posts: 1,088
Ditto ,.. Savage1r
bfoosh006 is offline  
Old October 21, 2009, 08:22 PM   #19
L_Killkenny
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2007
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,676
Philosophy on tactics of economical battle rifle use? What the heck is that for? When was the last time a civilian in the US actually had to engage man sized targets at the ranges you are talking about? The Kennedy assassination? Come on. If someone wants to shoot bug holes at 100 yards I have no problem with that. If someone wants to play army and engage targets at 100-500 yards using their "battle" rifle I have no problem with that either. Neither has much to do with reality though. And if it comes down to a long range shoot off I'll take the guy shooting 100 yard bug holes every time. He'll know more about his gun, ballistics, wind etc than 99.99% of "civilian" battle rifle owners. Some of you act like it takes 1000's of dollars to shoot sub MOA. I do it with a $300 gun, $110 scope and not so lovingly put together handloads. I shoot at 100 yard range to check loads and to see how small I can shoot bug holes. What does that combo get me? DRT fox and coyotes out to 400 yards and beyond. Do that with your $69 Mosin. Accuracy of a gun doesn't improve as the range increases.

Any "civilian" referring to his gun as a battle rifle will get pointed and laughed at by me. Same goes for any civilian using the term "sniper rifle". Now can we please move on and talk about proper tactics for deploying our gas masks?

LK
L_Killkenny is offline  
Old October 21, 2009, 08:33 PM   #20
savage1r
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2009
Posts: 313
Well, ok

I can gaurantee you no one is talking about assassination or engaging anyone in the US. Like some previous posters mentioned, the Appleseed project is an organization that seeks to teach us "civilians" to accurately shoot a man sized target out to 500 yards (and beyond I think). Again, my opinion that to do so would be for the challenge of hitting a target farther out than 100 yards. I believe referring to a Mosin Nagant as a proven battle rifle is perfectly accurate as it has been used since the turn of the century and is still being used. Certain rifles like the Winchester 70 and the Remmington 700 (I hope I got those right) and others like it are used as "sniper rifles" and are available to the public and military so I'm not understanding your hangup on the terminology I've used. I believe we're both in agreement that you don't need an expensive rifle or optics to make well aimed shots. And, if you read my post, I believe I proved I can hit targets out at range (video will be coming shortly).

Gas masks??

Last edited by savage1r; October 21, 2009 at 08:48 PM. Reason: Confused on that last sentence
savage1r is offline  
Old October 21, 2009, 08:51 PM   #21
bhannah
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2008
Posts: 188
Quote:
I take it your one of the "bench" experts?
I shoot from the bench yes but am in no way an expert but I also shoot sitting, prone and standing. But I would never say a person who shoots from the bench is not a "rifleman" yea apple seeds are GREAT!! but they are not a "practical" judge of a "rifleman" . Shooting small targets at 25 meters does not mean you can shoot out to 500 yards it means you can hit a small target at 25 meters. So many things are different out that far...
bhannah is offline  
Old October 21, 2009, 08:53 PM   #22
Sport45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 1999
Location: Too close to Houston
Posts: 4,196
Sounds like you need to join the NRA and check out a high power rifle match. The course of fire at our range goes like this:

Match 1 - 200 yd slow fire offhand, 2 sighters + 20 shots for record, 22 minutes
Match 2 - 200 yd rapid fire sitting, 2 sighters + 2 ten-shot strings, 60 seconds per string
Match 3 - 300 yd rapid fire prone, 2 sighters + 2 ten-shot strings, 70 seconds per string
Match 4 - 600 yd slow fire prone, 2 sighters + 20 shots for record, 22 minutes
Match 5 - 600 yd slow fire prone, 2 sighters + 20 shots for record, 22 minutes

Most shoot with open sights and many do very well.

And you can't expect the bullets to land along the vertical cross-hair of the scope at longer distances. Reading the wind becomes very important beyond 300 yards. It's not to be ignored at 300 yards and less.
__________________
Proud member of the NRA and Texas State Rifle Association. Registered and active voter.
Sport45 is offline  
Old October 21, 2009, 08:56 PM   #23
bhannah
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2008
Posts: 188
Quote:
I was just excited to be able to hit a target at 1000 yards
Please don't try to tell me you are hitting a "gong" at 1000 yards offhand with a nagant...

well maybe an 8 foot gong...

Quote:
I think it'd be a cool competition for people to hit those gongs way out there.
Yea give NRA High Power a look it is a fun shoot..

Last edited by bhannah; October 21, 2009 at 09:02 PM.
bhannah is offline  
Old October 21, 2009, 09:24 PM   #24
emcon5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 10, 1999
Location: High Desert NV
Posts: 2,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by savage1r
I can gaurantee you no one is talking about ... engaging anyone in the US.
You mean besides you? You said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by savage1r
I'm going to just come out and say if someone is seriously thinking they they'll have a tactical advantage over a semi-auto/full auto rifle at that range that you're just crazy.
Unless you are talking about "tactical advantage" over "semi-auto/full auto rifle" armed prairie dogs.

Besides, you don't need a scope to be a rifleman. Your Mosin Nagant sights (depending on the model) are marked from 100m to 2500m (M91/30) or 100m to 1500m (M38 and M44).

I rang a 300 yard gong reliably with my Swedish Mauser (prone with a 1907 sling), once I got the elevation dope worked out for my handloads, you should be capable of doing the same.
emcon5 is offline  
Old October 21, 2009, 09:50 PM   #25
Willie Lowman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 2009
Location: Uh-Hi-O
Posts: 3,006
Quote:
And, if you read my post, I believe I proved I can hit targets out at range (video will be coming shortly).
Pics or it didn't happen.

What is this thread supposed to be about? How more people need to have military rifles and shoot in a "combat" style setting? I am tired and don't have the patience to read that new chapter of the bible that Savage1r wrote.
__________________
"9mm has a very long history of being a pointy little bullet moving quickly" --Sevens
Willie Lowman is offline  
Reply

Tags
cheap , long range shooting , mosin , nagant , sniper

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.11816 seconds with 8 queries