The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Skunkworks > Gear and Accessories

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old August 17, 2019, 12:58 PM   #51
Bart B.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 6,812
When shot from most stable positions allowed......

Rimfire from 50 to 100 yards, centerfire from 200 to 1000.

"Went to call." means bullets strike the target where the sights were aligned to when the round fired. A tolerance of half the system test group size is considered. If your stuff tests no worse than half MOA at target range, shots should strike within 1/4 MOA of call; atmospheric conditions allowing, naturally. A good marksman can hold point of aim inside a half MOA.

Everyone whose shot 20 record shots slung up prone shooting rimfire ammo at 50 yards all inside 1 MOA scoring Xes with metallic sights all say target, front and rear sight centers must be on one axis (no parallax ((or misalignment))) with either one) to do that.

Same for centerfire from 200 to 1000 yards with at least 2/3rds of 15 or 20 with a few deep in the 10 ring due to environment conditions
Bart B. is offline  
Old August 17, 2019, 02:48 PM   #52
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 22,431
Quote:
Maybe someone can explain why my shots aimed with aperture front and rear sights having a 29 to 38 inch radius never pointed the barrel such that bullets went to call (for rifle-ammo accuracy) at ranges from 50 to 1000 yards unless their centers were all on the same visual axis from eye to bullseye target.
Because properly aligning iron sights involves putting the front sight/rear sight/target in a line and the only way to see to do that is if your eye is also in the same line.

That said, the article you brought up asserts (and backs up the assertion with real-world testing and scientific explanations) that well-designed aperture sights are forgiving of minor misalignment of the rear sight and the eye.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old August 17, 2019, 03:06 PM   #53
Bart B.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 6,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnKSa View Post
That said, the article you brought up asserts (and backs up the assertion with real-world testing and scientific explanations) that well-designed aperture sights are forgiving of minor misalignment of the rear sight and the eye.
Not when the test groups are greater than MOA without tests with a scope to establish what the rifle can do with the ammo and no plots of call versus shot hole to show errors caused by parallax errors.

Don't forget about the other axis whose angle and direction from the two sights axis doesn't change.

Last edited by Bart B.; August 17, 2019 at 03:35 PM.
Bart B. is offline  
Old August 17, 2019, 03:18 PM   #54
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 22,431
I'm ok with just the first part of my explanation, but since you brought up the article, I thought it made sense to at least give its contents a nod.

So:

"Because properly aligning iron sights involves putting the front sight/rear sight/target in a line and the only way to see to do that is if your eye is also in the same line."
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Reply

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 03:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.04720 seconds with 9 queries