"rising bullets"

Trust me, PMIs were not happy about the switch. Us and the Gunner community wanted recruits to continue training and qualifying in boot camp with iron sights and get introduced to the RCO at Marine Combat Training (30 day training period that all POG Marines go through after boot camp) and SOI. Unfortunately someone that is a higher pay grade than us ended up approving funding to add RCOs to all the weapons issued to recruits, and now they train on the RCO from day one. To me its a waste. The RCO is great for shooting unknown distances, but when it comes to pure marksmanship at the 500 yard line I wanna see that recruit put rounds in the black with iron sights, not a fucking 4x scope.

pic sort of related, I coached on this range for about 2 years before becoming a full PMI

Attached: IMG_0340.jpg (1936x2592, 2.68M)

Parade deck area 52?

Reminder that the 25/300 zero is shit and holding under after your height over bore ends is fucking gay

Attached: 1539821320511.jpg (1080x1080, 286K)

Yep. Here's the MCT barracks. We had a big PMI/CMC/CMT ceremony out there once and I snapped some pics of the area since I didnt get any when I was going through MCT back in the day.

Attached: IMG_0182.jpg (1936x2592, 2.44M)

During basic training in the army we were taught this aswell and it never made sence to me. Guys who have done tours in afghan and shit beliving that thats how it works and other privates actually believing them.

God the memories. Jesus christ. I can taste the shitty MCT chow eating sitting on the ground.

Went to ITB there as an east coast marine, pretty cool experience

It was a good time being stationed out there. All the coaches and other PMIs were great to work with. Probably the chillest unit I've ever been a part of.

Don't mind the doc.

Attached: IMG_0755.jpg (1936x2592, 2.32M)

Docs are either the biggest chads on the planet or pathetic betas, absolutely no in between

Bottom is in fact what happens retard.

I went to Parris Island in Nov 2011. I was one of the last classes to have no RCO. The classes that came after me all had them on with a little black sleeve to protect them.

Battlefield 1.

Canadian Armed Forces here. Yes, some people really are that stupid, but they make an effort to explain what's actually happening before you go out and shoot

I've never experienced anyone making that mistake, but given how dumb people are I could easily see someone doing it.

It's especially believable in a case where the weapon has been set up for you (Military issue, perhaps) and people misunderstand what their instructors are telling them, or perhaps the instructors themselves are idiots.

>he doesn’t into bullet backspin

Attached: 52AD3DBD-47A8-4153-8D14-EE3AD6CB6775.jpg (600x682, 48K)

>bb bullet

Not only that, but airsoft guns with the "hop up" feature have a special device near the muzzle which pushes the bullet up. That device is absent on real guns.

This. Lmao. Hey OP, stop lying or stop hanging around with people that believe that

I'm familiar with th3 system since i have a couple airshit weapons. i never use it because it's almost random and counters any real weapon sighting principles.

Lmfao did you make that all by yourself?

I have

i refuse to believe that there is anyone believes the bottom one is whats happening. you're having a made up argument in your head. you should leave your neetcave every once in a while and talk to people. real people, not the ones you made up

When I was kinda new to guns and learning about ballistics, I knew the bottom image made no fucking sense but I didnt understand what was actually happening. This made it click. OP didnt make this and isnt crazy.

It absolutely blows my motherfucking mind how the RCO's Chevron will trip someone's brain up. You really can't fuck it up but every time I go to the zero range I overhear ridiculous lores on how to use the RCO. Its the 300 meter aiming stadia at 25 meter Battle sight zero targets. There is no if ands or buts about it. There are no alternative ways to zero the RCO at 25 meters. You don't worry about the chevron, you don't fuck around with your point of aim. You fucking aim at the center of the target with the 300 meter bullet drop stadia and you pull the trigger and adjust as necessary. Incredible. The tard train doesn't stop here. The bullshit at the qual range is even more insane (Army).
>Just hold the chevron over the head for the 300
>Put the chevron on the chest at 300
>I don't even pay attention to the vertical line thingy just aim and shoot
Of course some poor sap that never got training on the RCO will grow to hate the chevron reticle and swear from now on that the ACOG is an inferior product.
You guys ever wanna see some wild shit with RCOs go check out a POG unit M4 qual range.
>RCO set all the way up front prohibiting proper eye relief
>HOW CAN ANYONE SEE WITH THIS?
>loosened mount identified after spending close to 40 minutes attempting to zero a weapon
It never ends. Trijicon really needs to send representatives around like Colt did to Vietnam when the product was being blamed instead of shitty directives.

i thought it was like below until i handled an AK and realized how zeroing sights changes the bore axis.

>why do some retards believe this?
>I've had discussions with goddamn professional soldiers who believe this.
>Are people just retarded?

When I went through army basic in 2011 I was taught the bottom. DS drew it out just like that on a white board. I remember thinking that made no fucking sense, but I had never shot a gun before and wasn't about to call him out. Didn't learn how to actually shoot a rifle until I was in a line unit and had a solid nco take me under his wing and explain the fundamentals of rifle marksmanship. Considering what an absolute shit show rifle training was on basic bitch irons, I can't even imagine what it would have been like learning on optics.

Attached: 1464562241748.jpg (2760x2098, 925K)

that's a big ak

Sergei heard seven six two and thought it meant 76.2mm

while you arent wrong, you surly know those RCOs are borderline indestructible and if someone did manage to break their RCO is some sort of combat they probably were in a much worse position than "oh man i gotta figure out iron sights now" more "i gotta figure out this one armed tourniquet application now." not always, i agree to a point. but i think its better to just teach them what they will use from the start. a lot of our rifles didnt even have rear sights issued to us.

Attached: 1462738218689.jpg (1106x1496, 192K)

>pic related Small Arms Design and Ballistics

Probably came about as a rehash of this pretty dumbed down diagram at the end of the External Ballistics portion of this book, or wherever this book took it from. Book printed in 1946.

Every other diagram in this book displays the barrels pointing up and the drop coming from the barrel so I think it’s literally some person taking one diagram that’s simplified to cover everything rather than looking at how it’s broken down into each of the individual factors in later chapters.

Attached: E2D088CA-F2E9-4C62-B4C7-D25279AEC41F.jpg (4032x3024, 2.15M)

I've just had a check of the diagram again. These are two different instances - the top diagram is as the bullet leaves the muzzle, ie the rifle has kicked back and up slightly. At this point you would no longer have line of sight to the target.
The bottom diagram is before firing - the trajectory is marked on but the rifle has not 'kicked' yet, in that it has not recoiled. When it does, the bullet would leave on that trajectory. In a sense it is correct as we line the sights up for us looking stationary, not for in the middle of recoil.

It makes sense when you break it down that way.

No it doesn't. Bullet is well on it's way before rifle kicks back.
Apart from that, bullets don't have hidden rocket engines to lift them the first part of the trajectory.
Barrel is pointing upwards relative to scope, that's all there is to it, the rest is ballistics.

How does it not. The bottom image is an indication of the direction that the bullet would take AFTER KICK. However it shows that we line the sights up while the rifle has not jumped.
IE, bottom image is correct in giving an indication of the bullets travel, but everything is pre-firing, with the issue being there is no indication that the bullets travel is post firing.

The top image shows the bullet as would be fired, including jump, however the issue is that the sights would no longer line up in this split second instance. It servers as an indication as well, but the flaw is it shows the sights as still lining up as the rifle jumps.

Both images are trying to simplify a process that occurs over time into one image and thus have to contain a small error. In essence, that jump will affect the bullet's trajectory and sight alignment. You can not deny that, and as such must accept these single instance diagrams must contain a flaw contingent with displaying a process that occurs over time in a single image.

Let me make my point really clear - both images have faults.
When the rifle jumps, do the sights still somehow stay on line with the target? No, hence the top image should not display them as doing so.

First image is correct.
Try it if you will with an airgun without recoil (e.g. PCP). You'll see first image is correct and second image is not.
In fact if you have the sun in your back you may see the airgun pellet rise and then drop into the target. Also if you are benchresting.

no. you dont get to troll like this. there are literally slow motion videos of rifles with bullets leaving them and the rifle stays flat. if this was the case accuracy/precision would be impossible due to the rifle negating any sort of repeatability with the recoil being different every time in the shooters hand.

Attached: 1443297438139.jpg (348x326, 29K)

>76.2
>not having tanks/AFVs armed with scaled up AK rifles firing 76.2x390

>with an airgun without recoil
Indeed, with something with no jump this image is correct. But in the vast majority of instances, there is jump so I'm sticking to my guns.
I'm not trolling. Those slow mo's are bench rifles on rails. They don't jump, and wow, they do have incredible precision. That's why human shooters have less precision. You don't have anything to disprove me - where this is jump, the top image is incorrect. You have to actually try quite hard to get a set of circumstances where there is no jump.

1/2

Attached: 93920111-FCE0-475C-9ABA-C81E650D50C8.jpg (4032x3024, 2.53M)

>barrel vibration isn’t a thing
2/2

Attached: F67B99B9-3CAC-42D5-A344-E7F9E1E8D4D2.jpg (4032x3024, 2.6M)

but the recoil will never affect the path of the round.
if you are talking about taking rapid shots in succession then you are still talking about each individual shot being taken with a different sight picture/target picture.
if you shoot and then reacquire SP/TP and follow the fundamentals then nothing will change and you can be as precise as your skills allow. but the recoil of the gun will not come into play with your aiming or trajectory

Fucking retards.

Attached: 15634046715585272470538546670616.jpg (4032x2268, 2.3M)

You've drawn your line of sight too low, should start above origin (since scope is above barrel).
When using fixed scope it is usually zeroed on the highest part of the trajectory. Any distance less or more requires holdover (which is what mildots are for).

>recoil will never affect the path of the round
How do you figure this? The very fact that the rifles bore will never be truly perpendicular and acting on the centre of the point of contact means there will be some moment trying to rotate the firearm in the vertical plane - at an exaggeration look at the Thompson with it's high bore axis. In an ideal world yes, but in reality recoil will almost certainly always play a part.

On top of that, things like
- barrel wobble
-heat distortion
-force on trigger (yep on a minute level)
-bedding of barrel to stock

Again I re-iterate my point: before the bullet leaves the barrel, the bore axis is not the same as it was before firing, and we zero sights from the impact points, not from the bore axis.

Well done, someone's drawn a decent diagram. But again, is this pre or post ignition? Because the line of sight will come off slightly post ignition, so I'm assuming this is pre-firing, in which case the trajectory would not be bullseye.
But the bullet's also influenced by a few other forces that make for some interesting reading (we're only looking at a vertical plane so yes your diagram is almost correct but you should look into these):
-wind deflection
-drift (gyrostat)
-yaw

Yes, I'm being super pedantic and arguing about things that only start to influence shooters at extremely high accuracy needs.

>Yes, I'm being super pedantic and arguing about things that only start to influence shooters at extremely high accuracy needs.

No, you're being ignorant. Try reading something about stuff like gravity and forces. You know, basic science. Avialable since 1800 or so.

I'm literally sitting with both volumes of Small Arms Design and Ballistics and then Ballistics:Theory and Design of Guns and Ammunition in front of me. Just try and refute my basic point, which I'll reiterate again, as opposed to personal attacks.

Basic point: The conditions in the barrel, affecting bullet trajectory, are different pre and post ignition of the powder, and as we aim before ignition but the bullet hits after, these conditions must be taken into account.

This is the formula i use for extreme long range.

Attached: 15634059452774147663578140576232.jpg (4032x2268, 1.96M)

then what you are talking about is an indistinguishable difference in results and a process that we cannot figure out if the bore, weather, shooter, or any combo played a part in. if you fire a dime sized group at 100 but can still see all three rounds impacts how do you determine what actually caused that slight spread? you cant, its too minute and will be chalked up to the shooter more times than not. but at the same time wouldnt be held against them as it was an amazing group. that goes from 25 to a mile any anything in between or past. hell ill give you force on trigger over recoil being a bigger factor and barometrics being second

And it's a pretty good one, but again can't account for things like position of the butt stock in the shoulder positional variation, barrel wobble, trigger pull and those other points I iterated.

Except we can distinguish it, that's why any good ballistics book covers it, as seen in my pictures above. You use other factors of methods of measuring impact to actually differentiate between impact points and quantify positions, not just say dime sized group. See . Force on trigger is a major impact of course, and I included it as being an issue
>-force on trigger (yep on a minute level)

But again, it's silly to not say these things influence shooting and as such they should be included in the diagram.

>any distance less or more requires holdover (which are what mildots are for)
>less
>holdover
You know how I know you dont shoot enough?

>working at funstore
>sell customer black rifle, bore sight for 25 meters
>two weeks later customer comes back
Shootan an 7 yards why my bullets hit low?!
>explain height over bore, trajectory
MIND BLOWN

Please, do explain

My rifle has a very minimal amount of barrel harmonics to deal with, very rigidly built. Even switching from suppressed to non suppressed has very minimal POI change. Position of buttstock and trigger pull are learned disciplines that come with shooting frequently.

Attached: 20190127_125647.jpg (4032x3024, 3.55M)

thats why i said "ill give you force on trigger" and weather. youre arguing about huge earthquakes around the world affecting me where i live because while it may of "technically" registered here did it actually affect anything i was doing, or how i got to my destination?

Google 36/300 yard zero used on iron sights on a typical AR platform. If your rifle is zeroed at 100 yards, anything inside of that you would be holding over, not under. Using your mildots, if you wanted. You were half right.

so comfy. I can imagine the extreme silence broken only by supersonic cracks

Sorry, hold under, not over. Dem modelos kicking in.

>thats why i said "ill give you force on trigger"
My bad, read it as ignoring me and comparing it to barometrics. All good. But no, I'm arguing about the line of sight being different before and after ignition and it being silly to present them as being the same and that both diagrams are displaying different instances in time, but not changing trajectory to reflect that. I'm treating it as a closed system.

Noice. But I'm willing to bet, if actually measured at 180 ft as Whelen's experiments, there would be anoticeable difference, in the tenths of inches. (Not thou tenths, just tenths.)

Thing is, this could be feasable with some sort of choke in a 44 special. You can load old fashioned balls.

Check figure 1 again.
The rifle is zeroed at 50 and 200 yds.
When aiming at 25 yards where would your aimpoint be, over or under target?

Tbh ive never even heard of a 50/200 yard zero. From what I just googled its not a true zero on both targets at those distances. Can you explain? If you're zeroed at 50, target at 25, youre holding under.

At a guess it's because of the trajectory of the bullet, on the trajectory curve it'll be at the same vertical position at those two numbers.

That, or it's like bottom neck at 200' and top of head at 25'.

>top of head at 25'
So a hold under?

Zeroing at 50 & 200 just means that at those distances your aimpoint is center cross.
In figure 1, the usual zero-distance would be 125 which is top of trajectory.
In that way you don't have to think about holdover or holdunder, you just memorize the mildots for each distance and apply holdover. One less way to make an error. Downside is you're using only half your scope and on real close distances this may be a problem. Which is why I use double zero-points on my scope for HFT-shooting, which requires hitting 1/2"targets at 8 yards and 1"targets at 45 yards with a 12 footpound springer. Especially at close range the holdover can be 2 to 3 mildots at 10x. But I did lose point because I had everything correct but the holdover or holdunder, simply because I was payin gto much attention to wind, elevation etc. So I will probably go back to zeroing on the highest point.
BTW: in figure 1 at 25 yds you would be looking at the second arrow from the barrel and hitting at the bullet trajectory below it: holdover required.

the diagram is rudimentary and for beginners to have it explained, as well as it simplified for the teacher not to be in over his head if he doesnt understand every aspect. and yes backpedaling imitate "every action has a equal...reaction" so yes will there always be a shift or a movement during...but through your own admission you are arguing such minor semantics that so many other factors coming into play would be ruled as the cause of the deviation before the 0.01 second of cork time

i have.
i heard it from one of my fucking MCT combat instructors when we were snapping in.
still baffled to this day
>be marine
>be marine grunt
>be marine grunt machine gunner
>get sent to combat instructor duty
>tell bootfucks that you have to aim lower under 100yds w/ the acog to compensate for the rise of the bullet as it leaves the barrel
???

i'd expect a machine gunner to know that that isn't what happens and the zero is why you have to do that but noooooooo.
also using the "tip of the spear" worked just fine under 100yds, you're not exactly precision shooting at that point.

that man will go on to be one of the more powerful fudds out there.

Is that the Alpha Shelf I see there?

Oh ok, ive always used a 36/300 zero on irons. What optic/rifle do you run on an HFT course? I dont know much about it at all.

Anyone who believes the bottom pick is what happens is too stupid to live. I refuse to exist people like that exist.

It's a 'train how you fight' thing, and that there just isn't unlimited training time. Teaching everyone on irons first stops making sense when the only time they will ever use them is an emergency.

For you.

I think HFT is more a european thing. Full name is Hunter Field Target, it's a hunting simulation with knockover targets. At the start of the match you can set your scope and during the match you cannot touch it. Matches are 40 targets in ranges between 8 and 45 yards with killzones from 1/2"to 1". Hitting the faceplate is 1 point, hitting the killzone 2. Best shooters are English varmint shooters (they shoot rats at farms with air guns all day long), with springers they usually get 70 to 75 points. I'm afraid i'm stuck at 65 but I don't practise enough.
My setup is a Walther LGV with a Hawke 4-12x40AO mildot. If I had to buy a new setup today it would be an LGV with a Hawke airmax, maybe with an AMX-reticle.

>>t. former RCO all experts PMI @ MCRD San Diego teaching boots how to UNQ in the fleet.

Huh, interesting. So air rifles? Does this honestly match up to me shooting me 3000fps with my AR at 600 yards or 2700fps with my bolt action at 1000 yards? Can i ask what country youre in?

Attached: blob.png (1480x656, 63K)

It's different but the game is the same. More power just means flatter trajectories and longer distances. A springer is very hold sensitive so it is actually a good training for firearms. Any error will show up in your results whereas a firearm is a bit more forgiving.
I am in the Netherlands, I shoot air- and firearms (mostly pistol .22LR and 9mm, every now and then rifles: anything from Mauser to FAL). But the HFT-matches are fun: each shot is different: angle to wind, buildings and trees changing wind-direction, coursebuilders using optical illusions to fool your distance estimates.

when the enemy figures out all they need as camoflage is a pair of red glowsticks on a triangular hat the US military is fucked.

What kind of projectiles do you use? Do ballistic coefficients even get calculated on air rifles. For me anything inside 300 yards, wind basically gets negated and doesnt matter.

marines safari hat? that's gold

JSB Exact 4.52 pellets.
I use Hawke Chairgun on android for the ballistics, it has a database of pellets with the BC's and weights. (BC's are a lot higher for pellets than they are for bullets/solids. Pellets use spin and drag to stabilise. Speeds are allways subsonic. My chrony-measurements are 228ms which resuts in 14,3 joules or abt 11 foot-pounds. Nicely below the max of 12 so I can travel to UK or Czech republic without problem (apart from legislation problems in germany)
Low speed and high drag means wind does have effect very quickly, not only from the side but also head on influences trajectory.

9.805m/s2 aktchually

>A springer is very hold sensitive so it is actually a good training for firearms. Any error will show up in your results whereas a firearm is a bit more forgiving.

2nding this. Air rifles are great training tools because of this fact. They really force you to perfect your hold. I have plenty of real guns (NFA stuff too) but I still shoot airguns every week. They're cheap to shoot, relatively quiet, and great practice.

I use JSBs too, they're the most accurate pellets in all of my rifles.

T. No clue what's going on

yep, it's one of the many very unique marine uniform items.
the marine uniform inventory is great.

The military is just a big club of noguns that happen to shoot guns

>tip of the fencepost at 25

You're fucking wrong, POG.

Tip of the chevron @25m=100m BZO
Tip of the fencepost @36m=300m BZO

t. grunt who went to coach's course

25/300 is perfect for the RCO with the chevron, there's a big ass red dot that marks 300. I used to do my head shot drills one on top of eachother with that.

... i'd eat there again...

They are taken into account because they are repeatable... it's why you adjust your sights... the fuck?

Ha, that's pretty embarrasing

>a. Range. For a Field Expedient BZO, the optic may be zeroed at 25 meters or 36 yards using the tip of the 300 meters aiming post as POA/POI. A 25-meter or 36-yard field expedient zero is less precise then a 100-meter zero; therefore, the zeroing should be conducted at a range of 100 meters.

Direct quote from a marine Corps manual. Tip of Chevron @ 100 M = 300M post at 25.

I actually believe you're a grunt though because you're a fucking retard, nigger went to SOI and Coach's course and doesn't know how his optic works. Ouchies.