The Right To Bear Arms

[westwall]

The "first" sniper rifles were "modified M-14s" ??
In WWII sniper rifles were the 03A3 Springfield with a trigger job and a scope. And since that time there have been many sniper rifles and most have been bolt action rifles - not the semi-autos.

The WWII rifle you are talking about is the 1903A4 (yes I own one of those too), and prior to that in the American Civil War they were using telescopic rifles for sniping. dumbag doesn't know anything about rifle marksmanship.

 

[Antares]

Stupid fuck....

Of course you would require Photo ID's for both...right?

Stupid fuck.

Register gun buyers, not guns. Run it just like voter registration. You register as a voter, you register as a gun buyer.

The government verifies you are eligible to vote, the government verifies you are eligible to buy guns.

You are free to vote or not vote after you register, you are free to buy a gun or not buy a gun after you register.

The burden of maintaining an accurate eligible registered voter list is on the government, the burden of maintaining an accurate eligible registered gun buyer list is on the government.

You show up to vote, if your name is on the list, then you vote; you show up to buy a gun, if your name is on the list, then you buy a gun.

When you vote, you vote for as many or as few offices and initiatives and measures as you wish, and the government does not know who or what you voted for; when you buy guns, you buy as many or as few as you wish, and the government does not know what you bought.


Problem solved.


Or you can be a totalitarian wannabe dickhead, like this:

To hell with freedom. "Prove you need this" is the new bar which must be cleared. You must justify a need before being able to exercise your allegedly inalienable rights.

The "prove you need this" standard should be applied consistently. For instance, you do not need porn any more than you need an AR-15. So we must let the religious people have their way and ban porn. Porn kills.

Our founding fathers were not able to foresee porn DVDs. They absolutely have to go.



You want to be a totalitarian fuck? Then do it right!


NEXT!!!

 

[Dubya]

Nice try dummy, I clearly stated that the M-14 was merely a improved M1 Garand, and the side by side pictures show that quite clearly. If you want we can go to the Italian BM-59 which is....yes you guessed it a M1 Garand retrofitted to a box magazine set up. Below is a picture of one of those and it uses everything from the receiver back, they modified the barrel and gas system but once again, it is a modified garand. And you think that it is is as good as the G3 or the FAL which is a joke.

The M-14 is a dinosaur, it is used because that's all they have, they would prefer a modern weapon instead of an UPDATED WORLD WAR TWO rifle.

The M-14 is much better at 500+ yards than the M-16. At 500 yards in boot camp, I shot bullseye every shot and they bunched around the heart.

To exchange parts, you may be able to use the trigger assembly and I'm fairly sure you could use the bolt without major modification. I think the trigger assembly would have to be modified, but the inner parts should be about the same.

The M-14 has very few parts that can be interchanged with the Garand. The concept is basically the same, but that can be said of many similar weapons. The M-14 was designed to replace the BAR and the M1 Garand. Both weapons have an operating rod that is curved to to fit down in the gas cylinder with a spring connected to a gas piston, but the distances to where gas is vented and the length of the gas cylinder are very different between the two weapons. The operating rod is connected to the bolt that rolls and rotates when the weapon is fired or the operating rod is pulled back by the operating rod handle. I think it would take more than a longer spring to make up for the differences in the length of the gas cylinders. It would be my guess that the part of the operating rod that fit into the gas cylinder for the Garand would be longer than the similar part of the operating rod on the M-14. I say part, but it's all a single piece. If that's the case and it is longer, it may be possible to cut down and mill the part of the operating rod that fits into the gas cylinder and make the part out of a Garand part. Like I said, I've never disassembled a Garand, put I've disassembed and assembled M-14s blindfolded, so I know the possibilities of how the gas cylinder could be shortened in the M-14. Besides changing the vents for gas, I think it would require more than a different size spring to make it function.

The M-14 could be equipped with a bipod that connected to the area where there is a gap between the barrel and the gas cylinder. It had a hinged butt plate that would flip up allowing the weapon to rest on the soldier's shoulder. When switched to auto, that allowed the weapon to rest on the bipod and soldier's shoulder without being held. In that position it was ready to perform like a 20 round BAR giving quick and powerful auto bursts, using the same ammo as the M-60 machine gun. With enough magazines and ammo, that's a lot of knockdown firepower from a platoon size of soldiers. Human waves could only get through once the barrels started melting down. The M-14 was also equipped with a flash suppressor and the Garand wasn't.

It's the larger, heavier bullet that makes the M-14 more accurate. With about two and a half times the weight, the bullet varies less with windage compared to an M-16 and windage is the hardest thing to esitmate. The long range ammo for the M-14 is 174 gr compared to 63 gr for the M-16. The added weight more than compensates for the slower speed and that's why the first sniper rifles were modified M-14s. There are various ammo types and the maximum energy is 3,526 J for the 7.62×51mm NATO and 1,796 J for the 5.56×45mm NATO. That's a big difference in the energy of those bullets.

BS. What type target did you qualify on? What ranges did you shoot and what positions for the various ranges? What firing rates did you use? How many rounds did you expend per position?

Bullet weight does not make a particular cartridge more accurate. Any first year shooter knows that. One of the most accurate rifles in the world is the 6.5X55 Swede and it uses anywhere from a 108 grain all the way up to a 140 grain bullet. It has an absurdly high BC and THAT'S what makes it so accurate. Not the weight of the bullet.

The M-14 on full auto is completely uncontrollabe. It is nowhere near what a BAR is (I've owned both) the BAR weighs 10 pounds more than the M-14 and fires at a slower ROF. Placing the bipod on the gas tube in that location will dirrectly imping on teh barrel (a total no no if you knew anything) which further reduces your accuracy.

I'm going to give you some advice, never try and bullshit your way around people who know firearms, we know very well what you do and don't know...and you don't know shit.

BTW, below is my M21. Unlike you I actually have the things I claim to have.

You think you are demonstrating you know something about firearms? In fact you demonstrate you can't even read. I never claimed to have any weapons and have said I don't have any. You only impress yourself with what you think you know. Were you in the service when they issued M-14s and later switched to M-16s?

The only reason to use the M-14 on auto would be when a human wave is attacking you at close range. How much accuracy do you need against a human wave? How many rounds are you going to shoot before the weapon gives out? If you were being attacked by a large group and the enemy was still in the distance, say 1100 to 700 yards, you could lay down some fire with an M-14 and tracers to start picking off the enemy, but auto is going to kick that weapon all over the place and not hit anything at that distance. Shooting the weapon is counter-productive unless you are hitting the enemy. If there are large amounts of enemy like in Korea and they are at an extreme distance, you can use tracers to adjust your sights and drop rounds in on them. It's good to have your ammo set up to fire a tracer every once in awhile and make adjustment, but tracers aren't good at short distances, because they give away your position. If you are familiar with your weapon, you will know how to set the sights for shorter than extreme distances and elevation changes and should have a good idea where to start setting them at extreme distances. The only time to use that auto fire is when you are about to be overrun and the enemy are so close that those two and three round burst have to hit someone. If you were trained well, you'd be zone firing before that time.

You were comparing an M-14 to an M-16 or AR. The M-16 has a 63 gr bullet max. The M-14 has a 174 gr bullet max. Your other gr examples above aren't small bullets like the M-16 and that's why they are accurate at a distance. The difference is the M-14 will put about 20 gr of bullet out there, but the M-16 while putting out less gr is doing it with two and a half times the bullets. Having all that extra lead flying around creates more injuries, though less lethal ones. At shorter distances, the advantage of the weapon goes to the M-16 and it goes to the M-14 at longer distances.

The basic Physics of projectiles has to involve the forces that act on the projectile. Obviously, shooting at a target up or down in elevation changes the path of a bullet from what it would be at equal elevation. If the sight setting were zeroed in for level shooting, using those settings to shoot at a target with a higher elevation would cause the bullet to fall short and using those settings to shoot at a target with a lower elevation would cause the bullet to overshoot the target. The weight of the projectile isn't influenced differently with gravity. Dropping two things with different weights will cause them to hit the ground at the same time. The only difference in how a projectile travels through the air is the resistance of the air. A larger diameter bullet will encounter slightly more air resistance.

Wind direction and speed are a major variable affecting the path of a bullet, so skipping all the obvious variables involved, it's best to consider it an inaccurate estimate. It's hard to tell if the wind will maintain it's velocity throughout the path of a bullet. That's why bullets less affected by the wind are better at long distances. How a bullet is affected by the wind is related to it's mass and velocity. The amount of area that the wind can affect on a bullet is also a factor when comparing bullets of different sizes and shapes. The wind is a force and a bullet having more force is less affected in the resultant force, which means it doesn't move off the direction of the target as much. A bullet becomes more accurate with more velocity and more mass. The product of mass and velocity is momentum, which is easily conceptualized as the resistance to change from a force. You claim the mass of a bullet doesn't affect it's accuracy, but mass translates into momentum which means the bullet with the higher momentum isn't affected by forces as much as a bullet with lower momentum.

Now if you compare bullets with the same momentum, you can see the picture from a different angle. It is possible to make a bullet or projectile that has an identical aerodynamic shape, but is made with materials of different mass and still has the same momentum. Consider bullets made out of lead, aluminum and depleted uranium. An aluminum bullet would have to have a higher velocity than a lead bullet to have equal momentum and a depleted uranium bullet would have to have a lower velocity. In this case the lighter aluminum bullet would be more accurate, than the lead and the depleted uranium would be least accurate. The reason is simply the faster bullet travels to it's destination in less time. The faster it travels, the less time there is for forces to act on it. Having a lighter bullet isn't the case with 5.56×45mm NATO and 7.62×51mm NATO ammo, because the momentum is no where near the same. The 7.62×51mm NATO ammo has a velocity of 790 m/s and a weight of 174 gr. The 5.56×45mm NATO has a velocity of 936 m/s and a weight of 63 gr. The M-16 bullet is almost 18.5% faster, which helps, but it's only 36.2% of the weight of the M-14 bullet. The M-14 bullet has 2.33 times the momentum as the M-16 bullet and when fired with weapons of equal quality, the M-14 ammo is more accurate. All that extra momentum more than compensates for the M-14 bullet traveling at 84.4% of the speed of the M-16 bullet. The amount of extra time the M-14 bullet is experiencing external ballistic forces isn't long enough to counter the resistance to forces that the addition momentum gives the bullet. The only possible way an M-16 could be more accurate than an M-14 is comparing a worn out M-14 to a match grade M-16. Bench firing the weapon without wind will identify a worn out weapon. When the quality of the weapons are the same, the M-14 has to be more accurate.

Normal rifle ranges are level and have distance markers. The ones they used to qualify with in the Marines, when I was there, had 200, 300 and 500 yard positions. Firing the rifle range at boot camp was the most eventful, because they would spend time to fam fire or fire for familiarization the weapon during the week they trained us to shoot. Their plan was to teach us how to fire the weapon. How to set the weapon for the various distances and positions during the first week and practice for four days and qualify on the fifth day the next week. That meant in the second week you were shooting the course five times with the final day being your qualifying score. The course consisted of 50 rounds and bullseyes being worth 5 points, meaning a perfect score was 250 points. I know expert was 220 or above, sharpshooter was 210 to 219 and I believe marksman was 190 to 209. Below 190 you failed and Marines have to qualify, so you are going to do it again and go back in training. The easiest way to describe the positions is there are four - offhand (standing), kneeling, sitting and prone. 3 events used 10 rounds and 4 events used 5 rounds. On the 200 yard line, we fired the 5 round offhand, kneeling and sitting plus a 10 round rapid fire sitting. On the 300 yard line, we fired the 5 round sitting and a 10 round rapid fire prone. On the 500 yard line, we fired a 10 round prone. There were 3 types of targets. A bullseye at the 500 yard line was a human shaped black silhouette, about the size of a real skinny person from the waste up. The rapid fires were also a human shaped black silhouette, but it was cut short around midway, let's say around the heart area, so it was maybe half the size as the 500 yard target. The other targets were round bullseyes, alternating black and white. All the targets were ringed with decreasing scores away from the bullseye.

 

[westwall]

The M-14 is much better at 500+ yards than the M-16. At 500 yards in boot camp, I shot bullseye every shot and they bunched around the heart.

To exchange parts, you may be able to use the trigger assembly and I'm fairly sure you could use the bolt without major modification. I think the trigger assembly would have to be modified, but the inner parts should be about the same.

The M-14 has very few parts that can be interchanged with the Garand. The concept is basically the same, but that can be said of many similar weapons. The M-14 was designed to replace the BAR and the M1 Garand. Both weapons have an operating rod that is curved to to fit down in the gas cylinder with a spring connected to a gas piston, but the distances to where gas is vented and the length of the gas cylinder are very different between the two weapons. The operating rod is connected to the bolt that rolls and rotates when the weapon is fired or the operating rod is pulled back by the operating rod handle. I think it would take more than a longer spring to make up for the differences in the length of the gas cylinders. It would be my guess that the part of the operating rod that fit into the gas cylinder for the Garand would be longer than the similar part of the operating rod on the M-14. I say part, but it's all a single piece. If that's the case and it is longer, it may be possible to cut down and mill the part of the operating rod that fits into the gas cylinder and make the part out of a Garand part. Like I said, I've never disassembled a Garand, put I've disassembed and assembled M-14s blindfolded, so I know the possibilities of how the gas cylinder could be shortened in the M-14. Besides changing the vents for gas, I think it would require more than a different size spring to make it function.

The M-14 could be equipped with a bipod that connected to the area where there is a gap between the barrel and the gas cylinder. It had a hinged butt plate that would flip up allowing the weapon to rest on the soldier's shoulder. When switched to auto, that allowed the weapon to rest on the bipod and soldier's shoulder without being held. In that position it was ready to perform like a 20 round BAR giving quick and powerful auto bursts, using the same ammo as the M-60 machine gun. With enough magazines and ammo, that's a lot of knockdown firepower from a platoon size of soldiers. Human waves could only get through once the barrels started melting down. The M-14 was also equipped with a flash suppressor and the Garand wasn't.

It's the larger, heavier bullet that makes the M-14 more accurate. With about two and a half times the weight, the bullet varies less with windage compared to an M-16 and windage is the hardest thing to esitmate. The long range ammo for the M-14 is 174 gr compared to 63 gr for the M-16. The added weight more than compensates for the slower speed and that's why the first sniper rifles were modified M-14s. There are various ammo types and the maximum energy is 3,526 J for the 7.62×51mm NATO and 1,796 J for the 5.56×45mm NATO. That's a big difference in the energy of those bullets.

BS. What type target did you qualify on? What ranges did you shoot and what positions for the various ranges? What firing rates did you use? How many rounds did you expend per position?

Bullet weight does not make a particular cartridge more accurate. Any first year shooter knows that. One of the most accurate rifles in the world is the 6.5X55 Swede and it uses anywhere from a 108 grain all the way up to a 140 grain bullet. It has an absurdly high BC and THAT'S what makes it so accurate. Not the weight of the bullet.

The M-14 on full auto is completely uncontrollabe. It is nowhere near what a BAR is (I've owned both) the BAR weighs 10 pounds more than the M-14 and fires at a slower ROF. Placing the bipod on the gas tube in that location will dirrectly imping on teh barrel (a total no no if you knew anything) which further reduces your accuracy.

I'm going to give you some advice, never try and bullshit your way around people who know firearms, we know very well what you do and don't know...and you don't know shit.

BTW, below is my M21. Unlike you I actually have the things I claim to have.

You think you are demonstrating you know something about firearms? In fact you demonstrate you can't even read. I never claimed to have any weapons and have said I don't have any. You only impress yourself with what you think you know. Were you in the service when they issued M-14s and later switched to M-16s?

The only reason to use the M-14 on auto would be when a human wave is attacking you at close range. How much accuracy do you need against a human wave? How many rounds are you going to shoot before the weapon gives out? If you were being attacked by a large group and the enemy was still in the distance, say 1100 to 700 yards, you could lay down some fire with an M-14 and tracers to start picking off the enemy, but auto is going to kick that weapon all over the place and not hit anything at that distance. Shooting the weapon is counter-productive unless you are hitting the enemy. If there are large amounts of enemy like in Korea and they are at an extreme distance, you can use tracers to adjust your sights and drop rounds in on them. It's good to have your ammo set up to fire a tracer every once in awhile and make adjustment, but tracers aren't good at short distances, because they give away your position. If you are familiar with your weapon, you will know how to set the sights for shorter than extreme distances and elevation changes and should have a good idea where to start setting them at extreme distances. The only time to use that auto fire is when you are about to be overrun and the enemy are so close that those two and three round burst have to hit someone. If you were trained well, you'd be zone firing before that time.

You were comparing an M-14 to an M-16 or AR. The M-16 has a 63 gr bullet max. The M-14 has a 174 gr bullet max. Your other gr examples above aren't small bullets like the M-16 and that's why they are accurate at a distance. The difference is the M-14 will put about 20 gr of bullet out there, but the M-16 while putting out less gr is doing it with two and a half times the bullets. Having all that extra lead flying around creates more injuries, though less lethal ones. At shorter distances, the advantage of the weapon goes to the M-16 and it goes to the M-14 at longer distances.

The basic Physics of projectiles has to involve the forces that act on the projectile. Obviously, shooting at a target up or down in elevation changes the path of a bullet from what it would be at equal elevation. If the sight setting were zeroed in for level shooting, using those settings to shoot at a target with a higher elevation would cause the bullet to fall short and using those settings to shoot at a target with a lower elevation would cause the bullet to overshoot the target. The weight of the projectile isn't influenced differently with gravity. Dropping two things with different weights will cause them to hit the ground at the same time. The only difference in how a projectile travels through the air is the resistance of the air. A larger diameter bullet will encounter slightly more air resistance.

Wind direction and speed are a major variable affecting the path of a bullet, so skipping all the obvious variables involved, it's best to consider it an inaccurate estimate. It's hard to tell if the wind will maintain it's velocity throughout the path of a bullet. That's why bullets less affected by the wind are better at long distances. How a bullet is affected by the wind is related to it's mass and velocity. The amount of area that the wind can affect on a bullet is also a factor when comparing bullets of different sizes and shapes. The wind is a force and a bullet having more force is less affected in the resultant force, which means it doesn't move off the direction of the target as much. A bullet becomes more accurate with more velocity and more mass. The product of mass and velocity is momentum, which is easily conceptualized as the resistance to change from a force. You claim the mass of a bullet doesn't affect it's accuracy, but mass translates into momentum which means the bullet with the higher momentum isn't affected by forces as much as a bullet with lower momentum.

Now if you compare bullets with the same momentum, you can see the picture from a different angle. It is possible to make a bullet or projectile that has an identical aerodynamic shape, but is made with materials of different mass and still has the same momentum. Consider bullets made out of lead, aluminum and depleted uranium. An aluminum bullet would have to have a higher velocity than a lead bullet to have equal momentum and a depleted uranium bullet would have to have a lower velocity. In this case the lighter aluminum bullet would be more accurate, than the lead and the depleted uranium would be least accurate. The reason is simply the faster bullet travels to it's destination in less time. The faster it travels, the less time there is for forces to act on it. Having a lighter bullet isn't the case with 5.56×45mm NATO and 7.62×51mm NATO ammo, because the momentum is no where near the same. The 7.62×51mm NATO ammo has a velocity of 790 m/s and a weight of 174 gr. The 5.56×45mm NATO has a velocity of 936 m/s and a weight of 63 gr. The M-16 bullet is almost 18.5% faster, which helps, but it's only 36.2% of the weight of the M-14 bullet. The M-14 bullet has 2.33 times the momentum as the M-16 bullet and when fired with weapons of equal quality, the M-14 ammo is more accurate. All that extra momentum more than compensates for the M-14 bullet traveling at 84.4% of the speed of the M-16 bullet. The amount of extra time the M-14 bullet is experiencing external ballistic forces isn't long enough to counter the resistance to forces that the addition momentum gives the bullet. The only possible way an M-16 could be more accurate than an M-14 is comparing a worn out M-14 to a match grade M-16. Bench firing the weapon without wind will identify a worn out weapon. When the quality of the weapons are the same, the M-14 has to be more accurate.

Normal rifle ranges are level and have distance markers. The ones they used to qualify with in the Marines, when I was there, had 200, 300 and 500 yard positions. Firing the rifle range at boot camp was the most eventful, because they would spend time to fam fire or fire for familiarization the weapon during the week they trained us to shoot. Their plan was to teach us how to fire the weapon. How to set the weapon for the various distances and positions during the first week and practice for four days and qualify on the fifth day the next week. That meant in the second week you were shooting the course five times with the final day being your qualifying score. The course consisted of 50 rounds and bullseyes being worth 5 points, meaning a perfect score was 250 points. I know expert was 220 or above, sharpshooter was 210 to 219 and I believe marksman was 190 to 209. Below 190 you failed and Marines have to qualify, so you are going to do it again and go back in training. The easiest way to describe the positions is there are four - offhand (standing), kneeling, sitting and prone. 3 events used 10 rounds and 4 events used 5 rounds. On the 200 yard line, we fired the 5 round offhand, kneeling and sitting plus a 10 round rapid fire sitting. On the 300 yard line, we fired the 5 round sitting and a 10 round rapid fire prone. On the 500 yard line, we fired a 10 round prone. There were 3 types of targets. A bullseye at the 500 yard line was a human shaped black silhouette, about the size of a real skinny person from the waste up. The rapid fires were also a human shaped black silhouette, but it was cut short around midway, let's say around the heart area, so it was maybe half the size as the 500 yard target. The other targets were round bullseyes, alternating black and white. All the targets were ringed with decreasing scores away from the bullseye.

What is meant by the terms bc and moa?

 

[Dubya]

BS. What type target did you qualify on? What ranges did you shoot and what positions for the various ranges? What firing rates did you use? How many rounds did you expend per position?

Bullet weight does not make a particular cartridge more accurate. Any first year shooter knows that. One of the most accurate rifles in the world is the 6.5X55 Swede and it uses anywhere from a 108 grain all the way up to a 140 grain bullet. It has an absurdly high BC and THAT'S what makes it so accurate. Not the weight of the bullet.

The M-14 on full auto is completely uncontrollabe. It is nowhere near what a BAR is (I've owned both) the BAR weighs 10 pounds more than the M-14 and fires at a slower ROF. Placing the bipod on the gas tube in that location will dirrectly imping on teh barrel (a total no no if you knew anything) which further reduces your accuracy.

I'm going to give you some advice, never try and bullshit your way around people who know firearms, we know very well what you do and don't know...and you don't know shit.

BTW, below is my M21. Unlike you I actually have the things I claim to have.

You think you are demonstrating you know something about firearms? In fact you demonstrate you can't even read. I never claimed to have any weapons and have said I don't have any. You only impress yourself with what you think you know. Were you in the service when they issued M-14s and later switched to M-16s?

The only reason to use the M-14 on auto would be when a human wave is attacking you at close range. How much accuracy do you need against a human wave? How many rounds are you going to shoot before the weapon gives out? If you were being attacked by a large group and the enemy was still in the distance, say 1100 to 700 yards, you could lay down some fire with an M-14 and tracers to start picking off the enemy, but auto is going to kick that weapon all over the place and not hit anything at that distance. Shooting the weapon is counter-productive unless you are hitting the enemy. If there are large amounts of enemy like in Korea and they are at an extreme distance, you can use tracers to adjust your sights and drop rounds in on them. It's good to have your ammo set up to fire a tracer every once in awhile and make adjustment, but tracers aren't good at short distances, because they give away your position. If you are familiar with your weapon, you will know how to set the sights for shorter than extreme distances and elevation changes and should have a good idea where to start setting them at extreme distances. The only time to use that auto fire is when you are about to be overrun and the enemy are so close that those two and three round burst have to hit someone. If you were trained well, you'd be zone firing before that time.

You were comparing an M-14 to an M-16 or AR. The M-16 has a 63 gr bullet max. The M-14 has a 174 gr bullet max. Your other gr examples above aren't small bullets like the M-16 and that's why they are accurate at a distance. The difference is the M-14 will put about 20 gr of bullet out there, but the M-16 while putting out less gr is doing it with two and a half times the bullets. Having all that extra lead flying around creates more injuries, though less lethal ones. At shorter distances, the advantage of the weapon goes to the M-16 and it goes to the M-14 at longer distances.

The basic Physics of projectiles has to involve the forces that act on the projectile. Obviously, shooting at a target up or down in elevation changes the path of a bullet from what it would be at equal elevation. If the sight setting were zeroed in for level shooting, using those settings to shoot at a target with a higher elevation would cause the bullet to fall short and using those settings to shoot at a target with a lower elevation would cause the bullet to overshoot the target. The weight of the projectile isn't influenced differently with gravity. Dropping two things with different weights will cause them to hit the ground at the same time. The only difference in how a projectile travels through the air is the resistance of the air. A larger diameter bullet will encounter slightly more air resistance.

Wind direction and speed are a major variable affecting the path of a bullet, so skipping all the obvious variables involved, it's best to consider it an inaccurate estimate. It's hard to tell if the wind will maintain it's velocity throughout the path of a bullet. That's why bullets less affected by the wind are better at long distances. How a bullet is affected by the wind is related to it's mass and velocity. The amount of area that the wind can affect on a bullet is also a factor when comparing bullets of different sizes and shapes. The wind is a force and a bullet having more force is less affected in the resultant force, which means it doesn't move off the direction of the target as much. A bullet becomes more accurate with more velocity and more mass. The product of mass and velocity is momentum, which is easily conceptualized as the resistance to change from a force. You claim the mass of a bullet doesn't affect it's accuracy, but mass translates into momentum which means the bullet with the higher momentum isn't affected by forces as much as a bullet with lower momentum.

Now if you compare bullets with the same momentum, you can see the picture from a different angle. It is possible to make a bullet or projectile that has an identical aerodynamic shape, but is made with materials of different mass and still has the same momentum. Consider bullets made out of lead, aluminum and depleted uranium. An aluminum bullet would have to have a higher velocity than a lead bullet to have equal momentum and a depleted uranium bullet would have to have a lower velocity. In this case the lighter aluminum bullet would be more accurate, than the lead and the depleted uranium would be least accurate. The reason is simply the faster bullet travels to it's destination in less time. The faster it travels, the less time there is for forces to act on it. Having a lighter bullet isn't the case with 5.56×45mm NATO and 7.62×51mm NATO ammo, because the momentum is no where near the same. The 7.62×51mm NATO ammo has a velocity of 790 m/s and a weight of 174 gr. The 5.56×45mm NATO has a velocity of 936 m/s and a weight of 63 gr. The M-16 bullet is almost 18.5% faster, which helps, but it's only 36.2% of the weight of the M-14 bullet. The M-14 bullet has 2.33 times the momentum as the M-16 bullet and when fired with weapons of equal quality, the M-14 ammo is more accurate. All that extra momentum more than compensates for the M-14 bullet traveling at 84.4% of the speed of the M-16 bullet. The amount of extra time the M-14 bullet is experiencing external ballistic forces isn't long enough to counter the resistance to forces that the addition momentum gives the bullet. The only possible way an M-16 could be more accurate than an M-14 is comparing a worn out M-14 to a match grade M-16. Bench firing the weapon without wind will identify a worn out weapon. When the quality of the weapons are the same, the M-14 has to be more accurate.

Normal rifle ranges are level and have distance markers. The ones they used to qualify with in the Marines, when I was there, had 200, 300 and 500 yard positions. Firing the rifle range at boot camp was the most eventful, because they would spend time to fam fire or fire for familiarization the weapon during the week they trained us to shoot. Their plan was to teach us how to fire the weapon. How to set the weapon for the various distances and positions during the first week and practice for four days and qualify on the fifth day the next week. That meant in the second week you were shooting the course five times with the final day being your qualifying score. The course consisted of 50 rounds and bullseyes being worth 5 points, meaning a perfect score was 250 points. I know expert was 220 or above, sharpshooter was 210 to 219 and I believe marksman was 190 to 209. Below 190 you failed and Marines have to qualify, so you are going to do it again and go back in training. The easiest way to describe the positions is there are four - offhand (standing), kneeling, sitting and prone. 3 events used 10 rounds and 4 events used 5 rounds. On the 200 yard line, we fired the 5 round offhand, kneeling and sitting plus a 10 round rapid fire sitting. On the 300 yard line, we fired the 5 round sitting and a 10 round rapid fire prone. On the 500 yard line, we fired a 10 round prone. There were 3 types of targets. A bullseye at the 500 yard line was a human shaped black silhouette, about the size of a real skinny person from the waste up. The rapid fires were also a human shaped black silhouette, but it was cut short around midway, let's say around the heart area, so it was maybe half the size as the 500 yard target. The other targets were round bullseyes, alternating black and white. All the targets were ringed with decreasing scores away from the bullseye.

What is meant by the terms bc and moa?

The terms stand for ballistic coefficient and minute of angle, but the art of shooting is more involved in the activity of compensating for the external ballistics than getting too mathematical and scientific about it. The person has to be familiar with the weapon and their environment where they can make quick changes that properly adjust for the forces that will take a bullet off target. The normal soldier is not a sniper, but will keep his weapon on battle (field) ready Goldilocks settings. They should know where to shoot off center target to compensate for a target being farther away or closer than those mid range settings. That allows them to quickly hit a target without taking the time to adjust the sight settings.

 

[westwall]

You think you are demonstrating you know something about firearms? In fact you demonstrate you can't even read. I never claimed to have any weapons and have said I don't have any. You only impress yourself with what you think you know. Were you in the service when they issued M-14s and later switched to M-16s?

The only reason to use the M-14 on auto would be when a human wave is attacking you at close range. How much accuracy do you need against a human wave? How many rounds are you going to shoot before the weapon gives out? If you were being attacked by a large group and the enemy was still in the distance, say 1100 to 700 yards, you could lay down some fire with an M-14 and tracers to start picking off the enemy, but auto is going to kick that weapon all over the place and not hit anything at that distance. Shooting the weapon is counter-productive unless you are hitting the enemy. If there are large amounts of enemy like in Korea and they are at an extreme distance, you can use tracers to adjust your sights and drop rounds in on them. It's good to have your ammo set up to fire a tracer every once in awhile and make adjustment, but tracers aren't good at short distances, because they give away your position. If you are familiar with your weapon, you will know how to set the sights for shorter than extreme distances and elevation changes and should have a good idea where to start setting them at extreme distances. The only time to use that auto fire is when you are about to be overrun and the enemy are so close that those two and three round burst have to hit someone. If you were trained well, you'd be zone firing before that time.

You were comparing an M-14 to an M-16 or AR. The M-16 has a 63 gr bullet max. The M-14 has a 174 gr bullet max. Your other gr examples above aren't small bullets like the M-16 and that's why they are accurate at a distance. The difference is the M-14 will put about 20 gr of bullet out there, but the M-16 while putting out less gr is doing it with two and a half times the bullets. Having all that extra lead flying around creates more injuries, though less lethal ones. At shorter distances, the advantage of the weapon goes to the M-16 and it goes to the M-14 at longer distances.

The basic Physics of projectiles has to involve the forces that act on the projectile. Obviously, shooting at a target up or down in elevation changes the path of a bullet from what it would be at equal elevation. If the sight setting were zeroed in for level shooting, using those settings to shoot at a target with a higher elevation would cause the bullet to fall short and using those settings to shoot at a target with a lower elevation would cause the bullet to overshoot the target. The weight of the projectile isn't influenced differently with gravity. Dropping two things with different weights will cause them to hit the ground at the same time. The only difference in how a projectile travels through the air is the resistance of the air. A larger diameter bullet will encounter slightly more air resistance.

Wind direction and speed are a major variable affecting the path of a bullet, so skipping all the obvious variables involved, it's best to consider it an inaccurate estimate. It's hard to tell if the wind will maintain it's velocity throughout the path of a bullet. That's why bullets less affected by the wind are better at long distances. How a bullet is affected by the wind is related to it's mass and velocity. The amount of area that the wind can affect on a bullet is also a factor when comparing bullets of different sizes and shapes. The wind is a force and a bullet having more force is less affected in the resultant force, which means it doesn't move off the direction of the target as much. A bullet becomes more accurate with more velocity and more mass. The product of mass and velocity is momentum, which is easily conceptualized as the resistance to change from a force. You claim the mass of a bullet doesn't affect it's accuracy, but mass translates into momentum which means the bullet with the higher momentum isn't affected by forces as much as a bullet with lower momentum.

Now if you compare bullets with the same momentum, you can see the picture from a different angle. It is possible to make a bullet or projectile that has an identical aerodynamic shape, but is made with materials of different mass and still has the same momentum. Consider bullets made out of lead, aluminum and depleted uranium. An aluminum bullet would have to have a higher velocity than a lead bullet to have equal momentum and a depleted uranium bullet would have to have a lower velocity. In this case the lighter aluminum bullet would be more accurate, than the lead and the depleted uranium would be least accurate. The reason is simply the faster bullet travels to it's destination in less time. The faster it travels, the less time there is for forces to act on it. Having a lighter bullet isn't the case with 5.56×45mm NATO and 7.62×51mm NATO ammo, because the momentum is no where near the same. The 7.62×51mm NATO ammo has a velocity of 790 m/s and a weight of 174 gr. The 5.56×45mm NATO has a velocity of 936 m/s and a weight of 63 gr. The M-16 bullet is almost 18.5% faster, which helps, but it's only 36.2% of the weight of the M-14 bullet. The M-14 bullet has 2.33 times the momentum as the M-16 bullet and when fired with weapons of equal quality, the M-14 ammo is more accurate. All that extra momentum more than compensates for the M-14 bullet traveling at 84.4% of the speed of the M-16 bullet. The amount of extra time the M-14 bullet is experiencing external ballistic forces isn't long enough to counter the resistance to forces that the addition momentum gives the bullet. The only possible way an M-16 could be more accurate than an M-14 is comparing a worn out M-14 to a match grade M-16. Bench firing the weapon without wind will identify a worn out weapon. When the quality of the weapons are the same, the M-14 has to be more accurate.

Normal rifle ranges are level and have distance markers. The ones they used to qualify with in the Marines, when I was there, had 200, 300 and 500 yard positions. Firing the rifle range at boot camp was the most eventful, because they would spend time to fam fire or fire for familiarization the weapon during the week they trained us to shoot. Their plan was to teach us how to fire the weapon. How to set the weapon for the various distances and positions during the first week and practice for four days and qualify on the fifth day the next week. That meant in the second week you were shooting the course five times with the final day being your qualifying score. The course consisted of 50 rounds and bullseyes being worth 5 points, meaning a perfect score was 250 points. I know expert was 220 or above, sharpshooter was 210 to 219 and I believe marksman was 190 to 209. Below 190 you failed and Marines have to qualify, so you are going to do it again and go back in training. The easiest way to describe the positions is there are four - offhand (standing), kneeling, sitting and prone. 3 events used 10 rounds and 4 events used 5 rounds. On the 200 yard line, we fired the 5 round offhand, kneeling and sitting plus a 10 round rapid fire sitting. On the 300 yard line, we fired the 5 round sitting and a 10 round rapid fire prone. On the 500 yard line, we fired a 10 round prone. There were 3 types of targets. A bullseye at the 500 yard line was a human shaped black silhouette, about the size of a real skinny person from the waste up. The rapid fires were also a human shaped black silhouette, but it was cut short around midway, let's say around the heart area, so it was maybe half the size as the 500 yard target. The other targets were round bullseyes, alternating black and white. All the targets were ringed with decreasing scores away from the bullseye.

What is meant by the terms bc and moa?

The terms stand for ballistic coefficient and minute of angle, but the art of shooting is more involved in the activity of compensating for the external ballistics than getting too mathematical and scientific about it. The person has to be familiar with the weapon and their environment where they can make quick changes that properly adjust for the forces that will take a bullet off target. The normal soldier is not a sniper, but will keep his weapon on battle (field) ready Goldilocks settings. They should know where to shoot off center target to compensate for a target being farther away or closer than those mid range settings. That allows them to quickly hit a target without taking the time to adjust the sight settings.

You didn't define the terms. You posted a huge diatribe (which is made up of questionable tactical decisions) instead of answering my very simple questions. I asked you to define the terms. Please do so. In your own words. Also, when using iron sights, what are the prime variables in the inherent accuracy of a rifle?

 

[Dubya]

What is meant by the terms bc and moa?

The terms stand for ballistic coefficient and minute of angle, but the art of shooting is more involved in the activity of compensating for the external ballistics than getting too mathematical and scientific about it. The person has to be familiar with the weapon and their environment where they can make quick changes that properly adjust for the forces that will take a bullet off target. The normal soldier is not a sniper, but will keep his weapon on battle (field) ready Goldilocks settings. They should know where to shoot off center target to compensate for a target being farther away or closer than those mid range settings. That allows them to quickly hit a target without taking the time to adjust the sight settings.

You didn't define the terms. You posted a huge diatribe (which is made up of questionable tactical decisions) instead of answering my very simple questions. I asked you to define the terms. Please do so. In your own words. Also, when using iron sights, what are the prime variables in the inherent accuracy of a rifle?

I have better things to do than answer your foolish basic questions about ballistics. Go take a two semester Physics course for Physics majors and let me know if ballistics is complicated science! You don't become a great marksman or pool player by studying science. The science behind these activities is good for someone to grasp, but the art of shooting or playing pool requires technique and practice. It's possible to be a great pool player and possess no formal understanding of the concept of the science behind the game.

When I'm shooting on a rifle range, I use a technique of trigger pull that makes it so I'm not going to know when that weapon fires. There is time on a rifle range and time to fire a sniper shot, but there isn't always time in combat and some types of shooting ranges are timed ranges. In hunting, there are situations where a person has the time for a shot and situations where they don't. There are times to avoid a shot, like shooting a deer and times avoiding a shot isn't as important, like in goose hunting, where there is still a good chance of hitting the target, so you take your chances at a probability shot. Only practice and training can teach the person what to do.

I've been involved with both science and guns since the time we moved from the city to a rural area at age 11. From the time I was a young child, I knew my dad had guns, but he didn't shoot them, until some friend of the family dropped by our rural home and wanted to shoot target practice. The guy bought a 357 magnum 6" revolver and he even let me shoot it. They were shooting various guns and my dad starts showing this guy how to light matches with a .22 cal. rifle. My dad grew up in West Virginia where they would shoot to eat and they didn't waste ammo. I taught myself to shoot well with a BB gun. Only practice can make somebody a good marksman, so you have to discover what makes a particular weapon shoot well and follow the proper techniques.

You're not the only person in America who has been around guns, so stop acting like you are! It's dumb to think people can't like guns for sports, but still want common sense laws to protect our citizens. The criminals and you idiots are the problem. We can make laws that allow people to enjoy the firearm related sports and protect society. If you have a problem with those laws, take it up with your mental health professional, who is paid to care about your problems.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The "first" sniper rifles were "modified M-14s" ??
In WWII sniper rifles were the 03A3 Springfield with a trigger job and a scope. And since that time there have been many sniper rifles and most have been bolt action rifles - not the semi-autos.

The mosin nagant was also a sniper rifle during WWII

 

[Dubya]

The "first" sniper rifles were "modified M-14s" ??
In WWII sniper rifles were the 03A3 Springfield with a trigger job and a scope. And since that time there have been many sniper rifles and most have been bolt action rifles - not the semi-autos.

I'm talking about a real sniper rifle and not some rifle used in the Revolutionary War.

 

[P@triot]

Stupid fuck....

Of course you would require Photo ID's for both...right?

Stupid fuck.

Register gun buyers, not guns. Run it just like voter registration. You register as a voter, you register as a gun buyer.

The government verifies you are eligible to vote, the government verifies you are eligible to buy guns.

You are free to vote or not vote after you register, you are free to buy a gun or not buy a gun after you register.

The burden of maintaining an accurate eligible registered voter list is on the government, the burden of maintaining an accurate eligible registered gun buyer list is on the government.

You show up to vote, if your name is on the list, then you vote; you show up to buy a gun, if your name is on the list, then you buy a gun.

When you vote, you vote for as many or as few offices and initiatives and measures as you wish, and the government does not know who or what you voted for; when you buy guns, you buy as many or as few as you wish, and the government does not know what you bought.


Problem solved.


Or you can be a totalitarian wannabe dickhead, like this:

To hell with freedom. "Prove you need this" is the new bar which must be cleared. You must justify a need before being able to exercise your allegedly inalienable rights.

The "prove you need this" standard should be applied consistently. For instance, you do not need porn any more than you need an AR-15. So we must let the religious people have their way and ban porn. Porn kills.

Our founding fathers were not able to foresee porn DVDs. They absolutely have to go.



You want to be a totalitarian fuck? Then do it right!


NEXT!!!

Ok - GREAT point on the photo id!

 

[westwall]

The terms stand for ballistic coefficient and minute of angle, but the art of shooting is more involved in the activity of compensating for the external ballistics than getting too mathematical and scientific about it. The person has to be familiar with the weapon and their environment where they can make quick changes that properly adjust for the forces that will take a bullet off target. The normal soldier is not a sniper, but will keep his weapon on battle (field) ready Goldilocks settings. They should know where to shoot off center target to compensate for a target being farther away or closer than those mid range settings. That allows them to quickly hit a target without taking the time to adjust the sight settings.

You didn't define the terms. You posted a huge diatribe (which is made up of questionable tactical decisions) instead of answering my very simple questions. I asked you to define the terms. Please do so. In your own words. Also, when using iron sights, what are the prime variables in the inherent accuracy of a rifle?

I have better things to do than answer your foolish basic questions about ballistics. Go take a two semester Physics course for Physics majors and let me know if ballistics is complicated science! You don't become a great marksman or pool player by studying science. The science behind these activities is good for someone to grasp, but the art of shooting or playing pool requires technique and practice. It's possible to be a great pool player and possess no formal understanding of the concept of the science behind the game.

When I'm shooting on a rifle range, I use a technique of trigger pull that makes it so I'm not going to know when that weapon fires. There is time on a rifle range and time to fire a sniper shot, but there isn't always time in combat and some types of shooting ranges are timed ranges. In hunting, there are situations where a person has the time for a shot and situations where they don't. There are times to avoid a shot, like shooting a deer and times avoiding a shot isn't as important, like in goose hunting, where there is still a good chance of hitting the target, so you take your chances at a probability shot. Only practice and training can teach the person what to do.

I've been involved with both science and guns since the time we moved from the city to a rural area at age 11. From the time I was a young child, I knew my dad had guns, but he didn't shoot them, until some friend of the family dropped by our rural home and wanted to shoot target practice. The guy bought a 357 magnum 6" revolver and he even let me shoot it. They were shooting various guns and my dad starts showing this guy how to light matches with a .22 cal. rifle. My dad grew up in West Virginia where they would shoot to eat and they didn't waste ammo. I taught myself to shoot well with a BB gun. Only practice can make somebody a good marksman, so you have to discover what makes a particular weapon shoot well and follow the proper techniques.

You're not the only person in America who has been around guns, so stop acting like you are! It's dumb to think people can't like guns for sports, but still want common sense laws to protect our citizens. The criminals and you idiots are the problem. We can make laws that allow people to enjoy the firearm related sports and protect society. If you have a problem with those laws, take it up with your mental health professional, who is paid to care about your problems.

Had you really been a Marine, and shot as well as you claimed, you could have answered the MOA question with a single sentence of no more than 20 words. The BC question could likewise be answered with a single sentence of no more than 35 words.

Instead you post a minor novella because you don't know a damned thing about what you posted and are trying to baffle us with BS.

Typical for dim bulbs like yourself.

 

[westwall]

The "first" sniper rifles were "modified M-14s" ??
In WWII sniper rifles were the 03A3 Springfield with a trigger job and a scope. And since that time there have been many sniper rifles and most have been bolt action rifles - not the semi-autos.

I'm talking about a real sniper rifle and not some rifle used in the Revolutionary War.

What an ignorant dumb ass. The photo is of a DEDICATED SNIPER RIFLE (in other words nimrod it was built for the purpose, you'll note it has no iron sights) made for the US Army in WWII. The Germans had them too, as did the Japanese, the Russians, the British, the Swedes.....I hope you get my point....though somehow I think you are incapable.

Now would be a good time to tuck tale and run, because you are way the fuck out of your league little boy.

 

[OODA_Loop]

We can make laws that allow people to enjoy the firearm related sports and protect society. If you have a problem with those laws, take it up with your mental health professional, who is paid to care about your problems.

Senate and House won't pass it.

 

[Dubya]

You didn't define the terms. You posted a huge diatribe (which is made up of questionable tactical decisions) instead of answering my very simple questions. I asked you to define the terms. Please do so. In your own words. Also, when using iron sights, what are the prime variables in the inherent accuracy of a rifle?

I have better things to do than answer your foolish basic questions about ballistics. Go take a two semester Physics course for Physics majors and let me know if ballistics is complicated science! You don't become a great marksman or pool player by studying science. The science behind these activities is good for someone to grasp, but the art of shooting or playing pool requires technique and practice. It's possible to be a great pool player and possess no formal understanding of the concept of the science behind the game.

When I'm shooting on a rifle range, I use a technique of trigger pull that makes it so I'm not going to know when that weapon fires. There is time on a rifle range and time to fire a sniper shot, but there isn't always time in combat and some types of shooting ranges are timed ranges. In hunting, there are situations where a person has the time for a shot and situations where they don't. There are times to avoid a shot, like shooting a deer and times avoiding a shot isn't as important, like in goose hunting, where there is still a good chance of hitting the target, so you take your chances at a probability shot. Only practice and training can teach the person what to do.

I've been involved with both science and guns since the time we moved from the city to a rural area at age 11. From the time I was a young child, I knew my dad had guns, but he didn't shoot them, until some friend of the family dropped by our rural home and wanted to shoot target practice. The guy bought a 357 magnum 6" revolver and he even let me shoot it. They were shooting various guns and my dad starts showing this guy how to light matches with a .22 cal. rifle. My dad grew up in West Virginia where they would shoot to eat and they didn't waste ammo. I taught myself to shoot well with a BB gun. Only practice can make somebody a good marksman, so you have to discover what makes a particular weapon shoot well and follow the proper techniques.

You're not the only person in America who has been around guns, so stop acting like you are! It's dumb to think people can't like guns for sports, but still want common sense laws to protect our citizens. The criminals and you idiots are the problem. We can make laws that allow people to enjoy the firearm related sports and protect society. If you have a problem with those laws, take it up with your mental health professional, who is paid to care about your problems.

Had you really been a Marine, and shot as well as you claimed, you could have answered the MOA question with a single sentence of no more than 20 words. The BC question could likewise be answered with a single sentence of no more than 35 words.

Instead you post a minor novella because you don't know a damned thing about what you posted and are trying to baffle us with BS.

Typical for dim bulbs like yourself.

I'm done talking to an idiot who can't face reality and has to question the honesty of others, just because they don't want to make America an open gun market and want common sense laws.

MOA was not taught to Marines so they could qualify at the firing range when I was there. They focuses on teaching the Recruits how to shoot and qualify with the weapon, because if they didn't qualify, they had to go back in training until they did. You aren't allowed to be in the Marine Corps and not qualify at the range or not pass a physical fitness test. It isn't that hard to get a 190 out of a possible 250 score on the rifle range. It isn't hard to figure out somebody who hasn't been in the Marines wouldn't know these details, so you're just a motherfucking troll, talking shit. The Marines at boot camp have figured out how to solve problems with recruits making mistakes like jerking the trigger. They've discovered things like when a hardhead keeps jerking the trigger after being told long enough to stop it, that simply sticking his finger with a needle will stop him from jerking that trigger. Just looking at the weapon let's you know if the recruit is holding their breath properly or breathing when they shouldn't be. They can correct the way the recruit gets into one of the four positions and if they have to correct someone too much, they aren't going to be so gentle how they do it. The methods might be harsh, but they were effective and no one failed the rifle range.

Go take a flying leap into the cesspool you crawled out of, Turdosaurus!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The terms stand for ballistic coefficient and minute of angle, but the art of shooting is more involved in the activity of compensating for the external ballistics than getting too mathematical and scientific about it. The person has to be familiar with the weapon and their environment where they can make quick changes that properly adjust for the forces that will take a bullet off target. The normal soldier is not a sniper, but will keep his weapon on battle (field) ready Goldilocks settings. They should know where to shoot off center target to compensate for a target being farther away or closer than those mid range settings. That allows them to quickly hit a target without taking the time to adjust the sight settings.

You didn't define the terms. You posted a huge diatribe (which is made up of questionable tactical decisions) instead of answering my very simple questions. I asked you to define the terms. Please do so. In your own words. Also, when using iron sights, what are the prime variables in the inherent accuracy of a rifle?

I have better things to do than answer your foolish basic questions about ballistics. Go take a two semester Physics course for Physics majors and let me know if ballistics is complicated science! You don't become a great marksman or pool player by studying science. The science behind these activities is good for someone to grasp, but the art of shooting or playing pool requires technique and practice. It's possible to be a great pool player and possess no formal understanding of the concept of the science behind the game.

When I'm shooting on a rifle range, I use a technique of trigger pull that makes it so I'm not going to know when that weapon fires. There is time on a rifle range and time to fire a sniper shot, but there isn't always time in combat and some types of shooting ranges are timed ranges. In hunting, there are situations where a person has the time for a shot and situations where they don't. There are times to avoid a shot, like shooting a deer and times avoiding a shot isn't as important, like in goose hunting, where there is still a good chance of hitting the target, so you take your chances at a probability shot. Only practice and training can teach the person what to do.

I've been involved with both science and guns since the time we moved from the city to a rural area at age 11. From the time I was a young child, I knew my dad had guns, but he didn't shoot them, until some friend of the family dropped by our rural home and wanted to shoot target practice. The guy bought a 357 magnum 6" revolver and he even let me shoot it. They were shooting various guns and my dad starts showing this guy how to light matches with a .22 cal. rifle. My dad grew up in West Virginia where they would shoot to eat and they didn't waste ammo. I taught myself to shoot well with a BB gun. Only practice can make somebody a good marksman, so you have to discover what makes a particular weapon shoot well and follow the proper techniques.

You're not the only person in America who has been around guns, so stop acting like you are! It's dumb to think people can't like guns for sports, but still want common sense laws to protect our citizens. The criminals and you idiots are the problem. We can make laws that allow people to enjoy the firearm related sports and protect society. If you have a problem with those laws, take it up with your mental health professional, who is paid to care about your problems.

Dumb ass the second amendment is not about sport shooting, hunting, or going out to target practice.

 

[westwall]

I have better things to do than answer your foolish basic questions about ballistics. Go take a two semester Physics course for Physics majors and let me know if ballistics is complicated science! You don't become a great marksman or pool player by studying science. The science behind these activities is good for someone to grasp, but the art of shooting or playing pool requires technique and practice. It's possible to be a great pool player and possess no formal understanding of the concept of the science behind the game.

When I'm shooting on a rifle range, I use a technique of trigger pull that makes it so I'm not going to know when that weapon fires. There is time on a rifle range and time to fire a sniper shot, but there isn't always time in combat and some types of shooting ranges are timed ranges. In hunting, there are situations where a person has the time for a shot and situations where they don't. There are times to avoid a shot, like shooting a deer and times avoiding a shot isn't as important, like in goose hunting, where there is still a good chance of hitting the target, so you take your chances at a probability shot. Only practice and training can teach the person what to do.

I've been involved with both science and guns since the time we moved from the city to a rural area at age 11. From the time I was a young child, I knew my dad had guns, but he didn't shoot them, until some friend of the family dropped by our rural home and wanted to shoot target practice. The guy bought a 357 magnum 6" revolver and he even let me shoot it. They were shooting various guns and my dad starts showing this guy how to light matches with a .22 cal. rifle. My dad grew up in West Virginia where they would shoot to eat and they didn't waste ammo. I taught myself to shoot well with a BB gun. Only practice can make somebody a good marksman, so you have to discover what makes a particular weapon shoot well and follow the proper techniques.

You're not the only person in America who has been around guns, so stop acting like you are! It's dumb to think people can't like guns for sports, but still want common sense laws to protect our citizens. The criminals and you idiots are the problem. We can make laws that allow people to enjoy the firearm related sports and protect society. If you have a problem with those laws, take it up with your mental health professional, who is paid to care about your problems.

Had you really been a Marine, and shot as well as you claimed, you could have answered the MOA question with a single sentence of no more than 20 words. The BC question could likewise be answered with a single sentence of no more than 35 words.

Instead you post a minor novella because you don't know a damned thing about what you posted and are trying to baffle us with BS.

Typical for dim bulbs like yourself.

I'm done talking to an idiot who can't face reality and has to question the honesty of others, just because they don't want to make America an open gun market and want common sense laws.

MOA was not taught to Marines so they could qualify at the firing range when I was there. They focuses on teaching the Recruits how to shoot and qualify with the weapon, because if they didn't qualify, they had to go back in training until they did. You aren't allowed to be in the Marine Corps and not qualify at the range or not pass a physical fitness test. It isn't that hard to get a 190 out of a possible 250 score on the rifle range. It isn't hard to figure out somebody who hasn't been in the Marines wouldn't know these details, so you're just a motherfucking troll, talking shit. The Marines at boot camp have figured out how to solve problems with recruits making mistakes like jerking the trigger. They've discovered things like when a hardhead keeps jerking the trigger after being told long enough to stop it, that simply sticking his finger with a needle will stop him from jerking that trigger. Just looking at the weapon let's you know if the recruit is holding their breath properly or breathing when they shouldn't be. They can correct the way the recruit gets into one of the four positions and if they have to correct someone too much, they aren't going to be so gentle how they do it. The methods might be harsh, but they were effective and no one failed the rifle range.

Go take a flying leap into the cesspool you crawled out of, Turdosaurus!

You lying sack of crap. The Marines live and breathe MOA (and have since at least 1900). It is the FUNDAMENTAL unit of measurement for adjusting your point of bullet strike on target.

In a nutshell a one minute of angle rifle will shoot a one inch group at 100 yards. I used more words because you're too stupid to understand the shorthand version.

What an ass.

 

[westwall]

You didn't define the terms. You posted a huge diatribe (which is made up of questionable tactical decisions) instead of answering my very simple questions. I asked you to define the terms. Please do so. In your own words. Also, when using iron sights, what are the prime variables in the inherent accuracy of a rifle?

I have better things to do than answer your foolish basic questions about ballistics. Go take a two semester Physics course for Physics majors and let me know if ballistics is complicated science! You don't become a great marksman or pool player by studying science. The science behind these activities is good for someone to grasp, but the art of shooting or playing pool requires technique and practice. It's possible to be a great pool player and possess no formal understanding of the concept of the science behind the game.

When I'm shooting on a rifle range, I use a technique of trigger pull that makes it so I'm not going to know when that weapon fires. There is time on a rifle range and time to fire a sniper shot, but there isn't always time in combat and some types of shooting ranges are timed ranges. In hunting, there are situations where a person has the time for a shot and situations where they don't. There are times to avoid a shot, like shooting a deer and times avoiding a shot isn't as important, like in goose hunting, where there is still a good chance of hitting the target, so you take your chances at a probability shot. Only practice and training can teach the person what to do.

I've been involved with both science and guns since the time we moved from the city to a rural area at age 11. From the time I was a young child, I knew my dad had guns, but he didn't shoot them, until some friend of the family dropped by our rural home and wanted to shoot target practice. The guy bought a 357 magnum 6" revolver and he even let me shoot it. They were shooting various guns and my dad starts showing this guy how to light matches with a .22 cal. rifle. My dad grew up in West Virginia where they would shoot to eat and they didn't waste ammo. I taught myself to shoot well with a BB gun. Only practice can make somebody a good marksman, so you have to discover what makes a particular weapon shoot well and follow the proper techniques.

You're not the only person in America who has been around guns, so stop acting like you are! It's dumb to think people can't like guns for sports, but still want common sense laws to protect our citizens. The criminals and you idiots are the problem. We can make laws that allow people to enjoy the firearm related sports and protect society. If you have a problem with those laws, take it up with your mental health professional, who is paid to care about your problems.

Dumb ass the second amendment is not about sport shooting, hunting, or going out to target practice.

The lying sack of shit claims to be able to hit bullseyes at 500 meters but doesn't understand MOA. What a complete ass.

 

[Dubya]

You didn't define the terms. You posted a huge diatribe (which is made up of questionable tactical decisions) instead of answering my very simple questions. I asked you to define the terms. Please do so. In your own words. Also, when using iron sights, what are the prime variables in the inherent accuracy of a rifle?

I have better things to do than answer your foolish basic questions about ballistics. Go take a two semester Physics course for Physics majors and let me know if ballistics is complicated science! You don't become a great marksman or pool player by studying science. The science behind these activities is good for someone to grasp, but the art of shooting or playing pool requires technique and practice. It's possible to be a great pool player and possess no formal understanding of the concept of the science behind the game.

When I'm shooting on a rifle range, I use a technique of trigger pull that makes it so I'm not going to know when that weapon fires. There is time on a rifle range and time to fire a sniper shot, but there isn't always time in combat and some types of shooting ranges are timed ranges. In hunting, there are situations where a person has the time for a shot and situations where they don't. There are times to avoid a shot, like shooting a deer and times avoiding a shot isn't as important, like in goose hunting, where there is still a good chance of hitting the target, so you take your chances at a probability shot. Only practice and training can teach the person what to do.

I've been involved with both science and guns since the time we moved from the city to a rural area at age 11. From the time I was a young child, I knew my dad had guns, but he didn't shoot them, until some friend of the family dropped by our rural home and wanted to shoot target practice. The guy bought a 357 magnum 6" revolver and he even let me shoot it. They were shooting various guns and my dad starts showing this guy how to light matches with a .22 cal. rifle. My dad grew up in West Virginia where they would shoot to eat and they didn't waste ammo. I taught myself to shoot well with a BB gun. Only practice can make somebody a good marksman, so you have to discover what makes a particular weapon shoot well and follow the proper techniques.

You're not the only person in America who has been around guns, so stop acting like you are! It's dumb to think people can't like guns for sports, but still want common sense laws to protect our citizens. The criminals and you idiots are the problem. We can make laws that allow people to enjoy the firearm related sports and protect society. If you have a problem with those laws, take it up with your mental health professional, who is paid to care about your problems.

Dumb ass the second amendment is not about sport shooting, hunting, or going out to target practice.

Dumbass! Is there any mention of the 2nd Amendment in my post?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have better things to do than answer your foolish basic questions about ballistics. Go take a two semester Physics course for Physics majors and let me know if ballistics is complicated science! You don't become a great marksman or pool player by studying science. The science behind these activities is good for someone to grasp, but the art of shooting or playing pool requires technique and practice. It's possible to be a great pool player and possess no formal understanding of the concept of the science behind the game.

When I'm shooting on a rifle range, I use a technique of trigger pull that makes it so I'm not going to know when that weapon fires. There is time on a rifle range and time to fire a sniper shot, but there isn't always time in combat and some types of shooting ranges are timed ranges. In hunting, there are situations where a person has the time for a shot and situations where they don't. There are times to avoid a shot, like shooting a deer and times avoiding a shot isn't as important, like in goose hunting, where there is still a good chance of hitting the target, so you take your chances at a probability shot. Only practice and training can teach the person what to do.

I've been involved with both science and guns since the time we moved from the city to a rural area at age 11. From the time I was a young child, I knew my dad had guns, but he didn't shoot them, until some friend of the family dropped by our rural home and wanted to shoot target practice. The guy bought a 357 magnum 6" revolver and he even let me shoot it. They were shooting various guns and my dad starts showing this guy how to light matches with a .22 cal. rifle. My dad grew up in West Virginia where they would shoot to eat and they didn't waste ammo. I taught myself to shoot well with a BB gun. Only practice can make somebody a good marksman, so you have to discover what makes a particular weapon shoot well and follow the proper techniques.

You're not the only person in America who has been around guns, so stop acting like you are! It's dumb to think people can't like guns for sports, but still want common sense laws to protect our citizens. The criminals and you idiots are the problem. We can make laws that allow people to enjoy the firearm related sports and protect society. If you have a problem with those laws, take it up with your mental health professional, who is paid to care about your problems.

Dumb ass the second amendment is not about sport shooting, hunting, or going out to target practice.

Dumbass! Is there any mention of the 2nd Amendment in my post?

Dumb ass you said this

We can make laws that allow people to enjoy the firearm related sports and protect society. If you have a problem with those laws, take it up with your mental health professional, who is paid to care about your problems.

It's the same old bull shit liberal argument about hunting and other bull shit.

 

[Dubya]

Dumb ass the second amendment is not about sport shooting, hunting, or going out to target practice.

Dumbass! Is there any mention of the 2nd Amendment in my post?

Dumb ass you said this

We can make laws that allow people to enjoy the firearm related sports and protect society. If you have a problem with those laws, take it up with your mental health professional, who is paid to care about your problems.

It's the same old bull shit liberal argument about hunting and other bull shit.

I didn't mention the 2nd Amendment and only morons equate making common sense laws about gun control to the 2nd Amendment. The law of the land has decided that the 2nd Amendment only prohibits the government from disarming the people, so that is what the 2nd Amendment says according to our laws, whether you believe it or not. The 2nd doesn't say anything about prohibiting common sense laws and regulations. I've shown regulations and laws that would prevent weapons getting into the hands of criminals. I've shown that these regulations and laws in no way prohibit owning weapons, including things like assault weapons. The only thing required is background checks, universal registration that is renewable to prevent transfer of the weapon and ballistics test for rifled firearms. When people with unregistered weapons recieve severe punishment and all the weapons become registered with a ballistics test on file, no one is going to want to shoot someone with that weapon, unless they have very good reason to do so.

If someone is so paranoid that they are worried to register a weapon in a country prohibited from disarming the populace, then they aren't mentally fit to own one in the first place.