I read stories of WW2 soldiers reliably making headshots at 300-500 yards with ironsights. How difficult is this?

I read stories of WW2 soldiers reliably making headshots at 300-500 yards with ironsights. How difficult is this?

Attached: Lance_Sergeant_Brown_and_Sergeant_A_Randall_of_the_1st_US_Armoured_Division_were_the_first_two_men_t (800x799, 59K)

Very hard but also very much possible if you're good

Stationary target, clear view, no wind or other weather effects, experienced shooter with perfect eyesight, a rifle in great condition that was above average quality coming out of the factory, good ammo, noone shooting back, and lying in the prone position with a good rest - yeah, it is doable. 'Reliably' would indicate that those conditions all remained ideal for shot after shot.

The skill of the US Army varied wildly.

You have people who volunteered before the war started and joined because they straight up enjoy war, and become great shots and then you have conscripts in 1943 who just want to make it out alive.

Not difficult. They would be holding a 1.5 inch group at 100 yards to do this out at 500. Not every rifle manufactured could hold that group but some could and those that didn't with the right skill could land a bit in 3 or 4 shots by chance alone

This and also helps if you had been hunting with rifles since you could walk like Häyha and such people. Country hicks with gun handling in their DNA make the best shooters.

>Country hicks with gun handling in their DNA make the best shooters.
Best shot I ever saw never touched a rifle till he was 19. Best shots are people who are mildly autistic because they automatically do everything exactly the same way every time.

That too. I have a pretty tistic friend (IT guy, what else) and he has an uncanny ability to judge distance, wind, do all those little calculations in his head.

I know a guy who's a legit paranoid schizophreniac, hearing voices and shit, and also an autist. He's by far the best archer I have ever seen in my life. I was present when he touched a bow for the first time in his life, he was 27, and he immediately was a perfect shot. They told him what to do exactly once, and that was all he needed.

Is it a good idea to go shooting with a paranoid schizo, user

Never thought of that, huh. He's alright though, really good guy. Just has these attacks now and then, but he's being medicated for that. Apparently schizophrenia is hereditary, his father has the same condition, and the older you get, the worse it gets. Still a cool dude tho.

Archery is a heavily autism frenly sport. Even more so than shooting it involves doing every single thing exactly the same way every time.

PS. Recurve and longbow are the only legit archery. Compound you might as well just take up shooting.

Ask Chris Kyle that, see what he thinks

He would probably lie about it

Attached: 80303.jpg (1619x1725, 474K)

>2-4 moa guns so probably 3 moa on average
>iron sights
>leaning rifle on forend changing point of impact
>inconsistent velocity mass produced good enough ammunition
>using effectively the bdc of iron sights
>a head is 6-8" wide
>300 yards
An exceptional shot with a good rifle could maybe do it often
>500 yards
lol no.

Id say it's a myth or that people arent good at measuring distances before range finders were a thing. People I talk to overestimate distances all the time

You wouldn’t be able to see a person unless they were wearing an orange jumpsuit in a green field, and even then, you would never be able to hit it without luck. Knowing that this is the same generation of “30 carbine bullets bounce off nork jackets”, I highly doubt this isn’t just tall tales

I think there is such a case in "The Fool Lieutenant".
Guy points out some German officer would observe them from a rooftop ~400 yards away, and he got annoyed at the guy's audacity, so he took the most accurate M1 from his platoon, rested the rifle on something, took his time aiming, and dropped the enemy officer.
He admits it was a mix of perfect conditions, practice, and luck.

>You wouldn’t be able to see a person unless they were wearing an orange jumpsuit in a green field
At 300 yards? Are you fucking blind?

>500
Are you?

A lot of misunderstanding there, broski.

>2-4 moa guns so probably 3 moa on average
Most countries tested their rifles at the factory arsenal, and picked the most accurate ones to issue to snipers. They did not use standard infantry rifles, they used ones which were known to shoot much better

Iron sights is not a problem, and it doesn't matter how you hold the rifle or lean it on the forend so long as you do it consistently.

>People I talk to overestimate distances all the time
You're not wrong about that. Most people are horrible at estimating any sort of measurement, simply because they have no reason to develop that skill. A military sniper DOES have reason and experience to develop that skill.

Attached: simo-hayha-taking-aim.jpg (700x372, 40K)

>t.has never left the city

>Iron sights is not a problem
They are when the front blade is 4 MOA wide. Lighting conditions can also affect the appearance of the front sight, throwing off your aim. It's not a problem for most military shooting, but it can be for precision shots.

There was an account of a shot at 500 or 600, I forget what it was exactly but around that distance, in a book called "With British Snipers to the Reich" where the author manged to pick out a German soldier in the field at that range and shoot him.

He called the shot exceptional in that it was unusual to have anything like a clear shot at that range, although the soldier was moving through a countryside area he wasn't entirely obscured or using cover. The author also mentioned that I was likely only possible due to the fact he was familiar with the particular rifle he was shooting and that he had tested it and knew it to be capable of 2MOA.

It's a good book, the author was a great fan of McBride and "A Rifleman Went to War" and made no secret of the fact that his own book was intended to emulate its approach and intent but using his own experiences in WW2.

Sorry to derail, but how is a front sight, rds, or any sight measured in MOA? Wouldn't the MOA be different depending on the distance your shooting? Maybe I'm just retarded but I never really got that.

Not that difficult back when the United States had a gun culture where everyone hunted who didn’t live in a city and children were taught how to use guns in public schools

Not to bring up the limited ammo capacity and the need for every shot to be a kill unlike to day with helo drops and air support

WW2
>3,000 rounds spent per kill

Iraq war
>24,000 rounds spent per kill

Demonstrates the fact that most military people shoot at things they don’t see They shoot in the general direction of where they think the fire is coming from

Attached: 3DE2B448-8D94-4760-B60E-02E4B08861C2.jpg (1024x683, 77K)

I go to the desert all the time. You would not be able to see a man in drab at 500 yards unless he was running and you just so happened to be looking in that direction. And if you did, you wouldn’t be able to hit him. Your front sight would be many times larger than the actual target

Well and also the ubiquity of fully automatic weapons has made suppressing fire more popular than ever.

Not really hereditary but you hereditary-predisposition to it is real thing, just like countless of other things like allergies, cancer, retardation, mind, physique etc but that is not talked about because "muh feelings" and "everyone deserves to have normal life" bullshit.

>but that is not talked about because "muh feelings" and "everyone deserves to have normal life" bullshit.
I don't really understand what you mean, elaborate

Please explain this image

Iron sights may not be ideal if that's what you're saying, but there is absolutely no reason they cannot be used accurately at those distances by a trained shooter. And that's exactly what I assume we're talking about if we're discussing "snipers" during wartime.

>> Wouldn't the MOA be different depending on the distance your shooting?
It's commonly measured at 100 yards. 1 MOA is roughly equal to 1 inch at 100 yards. So if you had a "4 MOA red dot" then at 100 yards the red dot would be covering an 4" circle; it would be 8" at 200 yards, etc.

It's all anecdotal evidence; a lot of top-tier shots never picked up a weapon until very late in their lives. Some country hicks are very elite shots, but others learned very bad habits that prove difficult to unlearn.

>They would be holding a 1.5 inch group at 100 yards
Problem is most military ammo at the time fired from an average rifle would be hard pressed to hold a 3" group at 100yds.
Factor in a little wind and it would be a lucky shot.

>I read stories of WW2 soldiers reliably making headshots at 300-500 yards with ironsights. How difficult is this?
You need an uncucked, unjewed and healthy childhood coupled with a non-onions diet. Impossible in the modern age.

>not knowing Based Nadim.

t. twink bodied zoomer who thinks hes some kind of "real man"

google her, it's a completely crazy female autist from Iran, who grew up in the US. She had a more or less successful YT channel where she uploaded very lynchian videos about Iranian politics and veganism, until YT changed it's rules of monetization. She was suddenly cut off from all those sweet youtube bucks, which made her very angry. She tried to start a mass shooting at the YT headquarters in California, didn't kill anyone, and finally shot herself.

Attached: cc9b4cce56f39fe1decbb29043e0b76e39631dff.jpg (342x361, 13K)

Two weekends ago I broke the 6 inch steel plate target at 200 yards with a Garand firing M2 ball spec .30-06, and I'm not the greatest shot. I'm sure men more capable than myself could do the same thing at 300 or 400 yards reliably.

She was also a Jew.

Attached: 1537115645491.jpg (680x383, 42K)

No.

no, she was muslim. maybe take a look at her stuff.

Ah that's kinda what I figured. Seems like a silly way to measure but i guess its easier to visualize that way

>Please explain this image
noob.
lurk more.

*citation needed.

You don't need a citation, you need to grow a pair.

I’m at a point in life where I’m beginning to doubt the validity of literally fucking anything that’s been said was “normal” or “possible” in regards to WW2. WW2 has become like this bizarre mythologized fantasy warfare tale, that seems to be entirely constructed from fictional movies, and anecdotal tales. I’ve heard WW2 vets THEMSELVES say nonsensical shit like you could fool Germans into exposing themselves on the battlefield using a fake ping, (dropping the enbloc clip on the helmet) despite the fact anybody with an IQ above their fucking shoe size knows that’s horseshit. As far as I’m concerned anything you’ve ever heard is about on the same level as a David Icke forum discussing physics circa 2008

Are you really such a shit rifleman that you draw the line at a guy hitting a 6 inch plate at 200 yards?