I have heard the statistic that the majority of combat is within 100 yards. If this is true...

Okay that makes much more sense. So keeping a 4 moa optic for plinking and practicing on a quick release system or with a 3x magnifier wouldnt be too terrible then would it

>After that point, striking a target without magnified optics becomes almost nearly impossible except for highly trained snipers.
What the fuck is this nogunz post
Piss off retard

Using a 3x magnifier is dangerous with a 4X red dot. You're talking a 12 MOA dot, directly in your retina. You'd be better off with a CombatCompass™ and memorizing your rifleman's rule and learning how to compensate for the Cornelius effect.

It *might* be sensible with a smaller red dot like 1MOA, but 4MOA, might as well use that for a bazooka!

Okay so a magnifier is useless with 4 moa then. And of course a smaller 1 MOA would be more effective at longer range, I am curious if a 4 moa is at all worth while practicing with at actual distances where combat may take place.

Maybe if you drive up really close and shoot them so your red dot doesn't look like a giant pie plate blotting out their head.

>I have heard the statistic that the majority of combat is within 100 yards

Well you heard wrong. 4MOA is to big and pretty useless
>4MOA is really meant for close range, like

In all seriousness, a 4MOA red dot is basically a fist sized dot on whatever you're trying to hit at 100 yards. Like an animal, steel plate, or a human chest. If you're wanting more precision shooting you should avail yourself to optics that are better suited to that, not red dots.

>No, red dot effectiveness has been statistically proven to fall off after 50 yards. After that point, striking a target without magnified optics becomes almost nearly impossible except for highly trained snipers.

I'm a trained sniper then. I usually shoot at 200M even with my 19th century stuff and this was the expected normal for infantry of the time too, with iron sights and the only reason I don't do that at 300M instead is the layout of my range. What you are trying to say is you can't shoot and stupid red dots with large MOA are fucking useless

>If you're wanting more precision shooting you should avail yourself to optics that are better suited to that, not red dots.

like iron sights?

I am a supremely trained sniper. I was just warning OP not to entertain thoughts of joining our esteemed entourage with a 4 MOA red dot. What is your sniper name? What do they call you?

Yes, that'd be one potential choice.

skilled handgun users can hit targets at 50yd with a red dot??? also forgetting that almost all wars fought before the 80's were done with iron sights in 300m+ engagments

>OP starts bait thread
>retards walk in, baited

>What is your sniper name? What do they call you?

Snipey McSniperface

He's fucking joking you retarded fucks.

AHAHAHAHA

Most people don't account for the Cornelius effect when zeroing, even at 25 yards it makes a difference.

I’m sure you’re going to see a lot of combat in the suburbs, user.

>THIS WHOLE FUCKING THREAD

Attached: 1554761497659.gif (200x150, 1.39M)

1 MOA dots/holographic sights exist.

Attached: Sponge Squint.jpg (1383x916, 126K)

Do you even know wtf MOA means, retard?
Minute of angle. 1MOA is 1" at 100 yards. I'll let you figure the rest out, dummy.

Attached: 1528689785857.png (602x332, 233K)

at what range does the magnus effect come into play?

50 yards, after you account for spin drift and the Poisson Effect (less of a factor but important). Keep in mind though, it's more of a problem the longer your bullet is so if youre shooting anything heavier than m193 youre going to feel it a lot.
Spherical predecession can be tricky but, fortunately, youll only need it past 90 yards.

it frustrates me when people call m855 inaccurate. It has more to do with weight and not taking your bullets' flight property's into account.

Wow, such a large collection of news media gun experts all in one place.

Attached: 1555667968251.jpg (496x602, 27K)

A lot of former 300+ kill navy seals hang out here

4 moa should be fine for inside 100 yards but if something came up at 200 yards I wouldnt feel as comfortable. Despite torsos still being an easy shot thats rarely exposed and it's more likely to be just a head or something.

That is NOT true for conventional units
Have you ever watched Afghanistan combat footage? I've clocked hours and haven't seen a single one where the enemy was visible
They usually just fuck up a mountainside/forest with a SAW, 50 cal and airstrikes

>statistic that the majority of combat is within 100 yards

Its more complex then that but it is still some what true. In Korea it was 70% inside 100 yard, and 10% for the 101-200 & 201-300 yards each. However US army combat experience in WWII had a different spread. If I remember it was 65% inside 100 yards and 20% inside 101-200 yards. For Vietnam I can not remember the full spread but something like 70-72% of firefights was inside 80 yards with like 90%+ being inside 150 yards.

However in Afghanistan the engagement ranges have been very different. The majority of fire fights after the invasion have been at a range of 200 to 600 meters, with 30% being between 400 to 600 meters (437 to 656 yards). Why?

The locals figured out that the M4 with a 14.5 inch barrel does not do well at those ranges and a RPK with a 23.2 inch barrel does reasonably good at those ranges. Same with Mosin–Nagant rifles which they have a fair number of. AKM are still their most common weapons. However they generally attack in squads of 5 to 7 with 1 or 2 RPKs and the rest of the men doubling as ammo bearers.

>The locals figured out that the M4 with a 14.5 inch barrel does not do well at those ranges and a RPK with a 23.2 inch barrel does reasonably good at those ranges.
No. Its because of long sight lines you dweeb. The locals haven't figured out how to use sights, let alone done that kind of comparative reasoning.
>However they generally attack in squads of 5 to 7 with 1 or 2 RPKs and the rest of the men doubling as ammo bearers.
Not even close. It's PKs in 54r.

Attached: DSCF4636.jpg (4000x3000, 2.78M)

Damn this is some quality bait

This isn't true in Afghanistan because the goal of the Taliban is to harass US forces, not actually engage with the, kill them and take ground.

In a real war, people are doing more than just taking potshots at you from max range with a PKM.

the rpk fires a 7.62 russian which is over 140 grains at faster than 2700 fps and has greater range than almost anything they can get a hold of besides the dragonuv

>dragonuv
Nice bait.
>the rpk fires a 7.62 russian
the rpk is chambered in 7.62x39. It is heavier than an AK, and as such is typically not used by the dirt farmers that make up the various insurgent groups in Afghanistan. When it comes to MGs, they prefer the PK, which is chambered in 7.62x54r. They use this weapon to initiate contact well beyond the range of rifles on both sides, usually by firing bursts weel over enemy positions, relying on tracers to walk their fire down onto their targets.
You are fundamentally wrong in your interpretation of their decision making process and weapon selection. The RPK has very little representation in Afghanistan.

Attached: DSCF4816.jpg (4000x3000, 2.75M)

Had enough representation that it was the deciding factor when considering whether a lot of individuals were just shallposting goat fuckers and which were jihadis doing recon

theyre both 7.62s and they're chosen because they have greater range and armor defeating properties than 5.56

>they're chosen because that's what's available.
Fixed that for ya.
also
>thinking that x39 and x54r are at all similar in performance, externally or terminally.

These posts are great. I love this style of humor

7.62x39 is NOT even close to 7.62x54r because they share the 'same' bullet diameter.

>implying they dont just poke 7.62mm holes through people
>implying they dont have massive stockpiles of leftover locally produced and combloc weapons at their disposal
lol bet you never heard of cyber pass
theyre barely different, it's like getting shot by one 7.62 at 0m compared to 100m with the other.

No. Stop. Just stop.

federal said minor differences in speed and mass do nothing toward larger wounds. Both are over the 2200fps threshold.

Effective range of x39?

not an argument.

define effective range

Take the L bud.

>degenerate pothead

7.62x39 Max effective range 350 meters. Practical effective range 250.
5.56x45 Max effective range 800 meters. Practical effective range 550.
800 is more than 300
550 is more than 250
>greater range and armor defeating properties than 5.56
Pretty sure x54r maxes out around 800 with standard factory loadings too.

do you have a source other than wikipedia for these bullshit claims? 7.62 is minute of angle to 1000 meters user, snipers use this preferred caliber in their precision rifles on a daily basis because of its superior range, accuracy, and armor defeating capability. 5.56X45 can hardly be called effective at anything other than wounding and it's much more limited in distance even trying to do that.

poor bait user. You can be of doings better than thats.

nevermiss.jpg

>7.62 is minute of angle to 1000 meters

If we are talking 7.62x51mm in match grade. But we are not. We are talking about 7.62x39 mm ( the AKM round) and mostly the 7.62x54R ( the older Russian service caliber).

>7.62x39 Max effective range 350 meters. Practical effective range 250.

If we are talking about that round coming out of a AKM (or the like) with a 16.3 in barrel. Even then I think you are under selling it, 300 m is a more realistic figure. The RPK has a 23.2 in barrel, with helps a lot in improving effective range.

>5.56x45 Max effective range 800 meters. Practical effective range 550.

Out of a 16.5 in barrel yes. However the M4 uses a 14.5 in barrel. Sources vary but think a practical effective range of about 450 to 500 m.

>past 90 yards
I'm fuckin' dying over here. Thanks for the quality post.

2 rubles have been deposited to your account, Komrad

I mean, you could, OP, but you lose a lot of precision doing that. A 4 MOA reticle is surprisingly large when you stretch it out to 100 yards and further. In my opinion, you’re better off with a 2 MOA reticle like most Aimpoints or a “combination” reticle like an EOTech with a 65 MOA ring and 1 MOA dot. It’s the best of both worlds. At 7 yards and below, the doughnut will be adequate, but beyond that you have a 1 MOA dot for more precise shooting. I’m not knocking it, do what you want. I just thought I’d throw in my 2c

I appreciate the insight. I literally know nothing about optics. I got a couple of cheap close range red/green micro red dots for dirt cheap and just use them at 50m or less. But want to step up. I just finished an AR pistol 10.5' build and have an 16' AR. Looking for the next optic.

>he cant hit a target at 100m with irons

Attached: IMG_4400.jpg (800x419, 307K)

>and just use them at 50m or less
you may need parallax adjustment on any variable at such short range best choice is glow iron sights with a ghost ring really not gimmicky red dots

Define most people, with decent shooting experience, yeah, you could use Irons just as effectively though, 100 yards is a bit out there for that type of optic and a normal person with basic shooting and firearm handling skills.