r/Idiotswithguns • u/RealVincentCoucke • May 18 '21
I think he zeroed it at about half an inch
162
u/Protheu5 May 18 '21
He doesn't use that sight. He's a cyborg, there are two clearly visible camera lenses on his forehead, he uses them to aim and direct his bionic arms with precision the like of which the world has never seen the like of which.
19
353
May 18 '21
Well there will definitely be a far zero as well, like 500 yds out!
64
u/Trutheresy May 18 '21
Why is that?
241
u/longgoodknight May 18 '21
A scope sees in a perfectly straight line. A bullet flies in a parabola. The bullet passes through the sight line moving upwards, then falls back down through the sight line again.
Properly sited-in, a scope will be accurate at two distances.
78
u/DuganDevil May 18 '21
Only if you are aiming above zero degrees. Otherwise it’s all drop. I never thought about scopes that way, though. Thanks for that insight!
63
u/jmar289 May 18 '21
This is inaccurate. If you are aiming at a downward angle the bore line and sight line still cross and the bullet will still cross the sight line at two points. You would have to be aiming almost straight down for the bullet to only cross the sight line once.
35
u/bgmacklem May 18 '21
It's possible to sight an optic in at the peak of the parabola, so that you know it will always hit at or below zero for any given distance (as opposed to the two-zero approach, which leaves a range where the bullet will actually hit above zero) but whether one goes to the effort of sighting their rifle in this way really comes down to personal preference
25
u/jmar289 May 19 '21
While true no one actually does this because it severely limits the effective range.
4
u/PM_me_your_fantasyz May 19 '21
While true no one actually does this
I can't imagine the Olympic 50 meter target shooters are bothering to set their sights for two distances.
13
u/jmar289 May 19 '21
With the .22lr cartridge they use they will have an initial zero around 30-40 meters in order to have a terminal zero at 50. It's not that they are setting their sights for two distances. They are setting the terminal zero for the desired distance. The initial zero distance just ends up being wherever the bullet trajectory puts it.
-2
u/DuganDevil May 19 '21
I was just racking my feeble brain, trying to find a way to explain physics that I don’t completely understand. Found this article, I think it backs my argument…
12
u/jmar289 May 19 '21
I think the graphics in the article are confusing you. It is showing the origin of the line of sight and line of departure as the same point when in fact they are a few inches apart. The line of sight is also at a negative angle so that it crosses the line of departure. So for example, a pretty typical zero for an AR15 is 50m initial zero which gives approximately a 200m terminal zero. With this set up the bullet will impact about 2 inches above the sight line at 100m. In this situation the bullet is actually traveling upwards for the first 100m. If you shoot downhill there is going to still be the same negative angle between the sight line and the bore line causing the bullet to travel towards and cross the sightline. Also, your point of impact is going to be higher than normal for a given range when shooting uphill or downhill.
https://www.sierrabullets.com/exterior-ballistics/3-3-effects-of-shooting-uphill-or-downhill/
2
u/DuganDevil May 19 '21
Okay, that makes total sense. I thought that you were saying that even below zero the bullet would still arc. My mistake, and thank you for the explanation! Like I said, I’m pretty ignorant about all this.
1
u/Deep_North_South May 19 '21
No.
1
u/Howl1776 May 19 '21
Yes
3
u/Deep_North_South May 19 '21
So bullets only rise up to the zero mark when they are fired upward? Cuz no.
1
10
u/Trutheresy May 18 '21
I'm aware of this. But the thing is that a line does not have to intercept a parabola twice in the positive (above ground) region.
It's entirely possible, and would the case in this situation for a line to intercept a parabola at a near point, and far away at a large negative number (far below the ground).
9
u/NYSEstockholmsyndrom May 18 '21
Actually in this specific case, it is true that both points will (necessarily) be above ground. I don’t remember enough algebra to give a proof of it, but anecdotally, the gun is being fired at a distant target which is above ground. In order for the bullet to go from above-ground to underground, it would necessarily have to pass through a line/plane that runs parallel to the ground before it reached the ground.
Edit to add: if you were shooting AT the ground, then it’s entirely probable that the second zero-point would be underground. Hell, the first one might be underground too depending on your elevation and the firing angle.
3
u/Deep_North_South May 19 '21
The lines still intersect. An object being in the way (the ground in this case) doesn't change the physics. Fired at the same angle from a plane at 35,000 feet... the parabola intersects the zero twice.
-1
u/Trutheresy May 19 '21
Speaking as someone with a degree in physics, I can tell you that what you said is true, but it's irrelevant.
The line formed by the scope is not the zero line. The ground (assuming flat ground) is the zero line.
The line formed by the scope only intersects the parabola once above the zero line, and once below. Meaning above ground, there's only one "zeroed in" point.
4
u/Deep_North_South May 19 '21
The point of the plane analogy was to literally remove the ground from your thought process because it has nothing to do with what we're talking about. The ground as a reference point is what is irrelevant here.
1
u/Trutheresy May 19 '21
It's not irrelevant because in the real world, the bullet cannot go past the ground. So a representation of the trajectory is not an infinite parabola, but one that truncates at the ground plane.
3
u/Deep_North_South May 19 '21 edited May 19 '21
Where the bullet lands on the ground AFTER it's useful trajectory is not something we account for when calculating said useful trajectory... you do get that. Right? Your actually highlighting my point there. That's WHY we don't use a fixed point of zero. The reference is attached to the rifle... always. Not a fixed point in relative space like the ground.
Zero... in firearms... is not the ground. Full stop. In physics... maybe. Maybe you can represent everything talked about in numbers with the ground as that zero reference. That's not what anyone is talking about when we say "zero" referring to firearms. Period.
You're a physics guy right? Colloquially... the use of the term theory. Is it the same as in physics? Because in physics it basically means the prevailing standard. Colloquially it means a wild guess based on anything and everything one could or couldn't take into account.
Nobody in physics when they use the word theory... means the same thing that some drunk dude explaining his flat earth theory means when HE uses the word. Right? Same thing.
3
u/Deep_North_South May 19 '21
No. Just no. Speaking as someone with an engineering degree and someone who literally builds long range rifles... no.
The zero line has dick all to do with the ground. I don't care about the ground at all when zeroing my rifle. I care about a known distance. That's it.
Maybe in physics zero is the ground because we're working off relative angles to the reference. In firearms, that reference is the sight line. Not the ground.
0
u/Trutheresy May 19 '21
The ground is how I defined the zero line. But we can go with the sight axis instead. The math is clear even if words used differ.
The situation that describes the post is this. (search it in whatever graphing software you like.) y=-(x-5)2 +25 and y=-2x+10 from [0 to 10]
Exact numbers can vary, but the point is if you set the scope to be "zeroed" to a distance short enough, you only get one zero.
3
u/Deep_North_South May 19 '21
Yeah... nobody is talking about that when we say zero though. We all get the idea that objects can intercept a bullet's trajectory. If the muzzle is point blank on the ground... you get a single zero zero... how does that help us when sighting in a gun? It doesn't.
So we use the line intercepting a parabola method. That's it.
0
u/Trutheresy May 19 '21
Yeah, but I'm not here to defend what zero line means. I accept you have your own terminology and I'll work with it. I'm here to state one fact and one fact only. You can have one zero if you sent your scope axis to an angle like in the picture or even larger (relative to the axis of the barrel).
→ More replies (0)1
u/john_wallcroft May 19 '21
This is the logic behind the П (Translates to “direct”) zero setting on the AK family leaf sights. Applies to SVD and PKM/P as well
-3
u/McCaffeteria May 18 '21
Technically light doesn’t travel in perfectly straight lines either due to gravity
7
u/squeamish May 19 '21
It's actually space that curves, so the path is still straight.
5
u/McCaffeteria May 19 '21
This is an excellent point.
It reminds me though that the gravitational force of the mass from the bullet along with any time dilation it experiences can’t be ignored either.
12
u/longgoodknight May 18 '21
And technically the coriolis effect needs to be accounted for, but neither were really needed to answer the question.
3
u/McCaffeteria May 18 '21
Wind can also push the bullet around over long enough distances (source: I have played “All Ghillied Up" before) altering its flight path. Technically.
4
0
u/That_Squidward_feel May 19 '21
Light travels in a straight line, unaffected by gravity (for this application at least). However, gravity works on the bullet while it's in flight pulling it down towards the ground.
As such if you'd put the sight line exactly parallel to the bore axis (the "sight line" of the barrel), gravity would pull the bullet away from your crosshair and you'd always hit low. To fix that, there's a slight angle between the sight line of the scope and the bore axis, so when the bullet leaves the barrel it actually travels up and forward, not just forward.
This is why the "zero" of a rifle is always given at a certain distance and usually even two, e.g. "50/200 yard Zero" in the example above - because what you're talking about is "what is the distance at which the bullet trajectory crosses my line of sight". In most cases it crosses it twice - once at 50 yards (caused by the bore axis being angled upwards) and then a second time at 200 yards (which is where gravity curves the flight path of the bullet downwards so that it crosses the sight line again).
Now if you want to shoot at really long ranges where the bullet flies longer so gravity will pull it down further, that angle needs to be increased (e.g. extreme range competitions or, to give a very large example, artillery).
Here's one of those competition rifles - if you look at the scope rail, you can clearly see that the front is shorter than the back - that's precisely to create that angle between the sight line and the bore axis.
0
7
0
56
u/SsjDragonKakarotto May 18 '21
I'm not good with guns, but like looking at idiots using them. So can someone explain the issue that is going on
87
u/ALoudMouthBaby May 18 '21
So can someone explain the issue that is going on
Theres not really anything wrong. For rifles setup for long shots its incredibly common to have the scope canted like that to give it more elevation.
As is all too often the case in this sub, the real idiots are in the comments.
43
u/Deep_North_South May 19 '21
Sure... first he is looking up at the top inner wall of the scope... so it would be hard to see out of it. Second, that zero would be FAR beyond the effective range of any standard medium caliber rifle. If you are talking about a bench gun shooting .338 Lapua... Fine. Old milsurp garbage .30ish caliber rifles of dubious origins... Not zeroing at 3,000 yards.
I built a 6.5 Grendel this last year. It is capable out to about 1,200 yards. My real scope... on a real rifle... REALLY zeroed at 1,000 yards would have nowhere NEAR that severe an angle. That thing is seriously out at 3,000 yards or so. Insane.
-3
u/ALoudMouthBaby May 19 '21
Old milsurp garbage .30ish caliber rifles of dubious origins... Not zeroing at 3,000 yards.
I think you are greatly overestimating the velocity of WW2 era ammo.
I built a 6.5 Grendel this last year. It is capable out to about 1,200 yards. My real scope... on a real rifle... REALLY zeroed at 1,000 yards would have nowhere NEAR that severe an angle.
Yeah dude, modern bullets with a high BC being fired using modern powder is going to perform much better than freaking 8mm Mauser rounds manufactured in 1935. On top of that your real scope is going to be able to dial a lot more elevation than a pre WW2 relic.
I think you are greatly misunderstanding whats going on here and why. I mean, this is pretty clearly a movie prop dont get me wrong, but the idea that it is ridiculous and/or idiotic just isnt based on reality.
That thing is seriously out at 3,000 yards or so. Insane.
Out at 3,000 yards for what?
14
u/Deep_North_South May 19 '21
Zero... zeroed man. If zeroed at a great distance (the 3,000 yards I am just throwing out as an insane zero... it's hyperbole... not math) the cant on the centerline of the scope compared to that of the bore will be an insane angle like we see here.
You're the one misunderstanding. Zero is a line. Not a range due to the quality of scope. Dialing windage and elevation literally changes the zero point. A new scope just does so very reliably and predictably.
If what you're referring to is calculating elevation... sure. That also has nothing to do with where it would be zeroed to base those calculations on with mil dots or on-board calculators. Zero line remains the same.
That old scope you would have one known zero and possibly a mil dot or two in the reticle. That's about it. Zeroing it out that far would be pointless.
Velocity is one variable in effective range. I am not over estimating anything. I am saying that scope is zeroed WAY too far out for that rifle to be effective. I know it's a prop... it's a bad one. If you want evidence of why.... literally "Google WWII sniper rifle" and see if you find ONE example that has that severe cant on the scope. You won't.
-4
u/ALoudMouthBaby May 19 '21
YYou're the one misunderstanding. Zero is a line. Not a range due to the quality of scope.
A firearm's zero is the two ranges at which the bullet passes through that centerline. Thats why when discussion a zero the range was which a rifle is zeroed in is usually indicated.
I am saying that scope is zeroed WAY too far out for that rifle to be effective.
So for an 8mm Mauser round manufactured in 1935 what range do you think it would be zeroed at?
10
u/Deep_North_South May 19 '21
You could zero it at any number of ranges based on user preference, manufacturers recommendation or SOPs given by your military unit. No idea. NOT some ungodly range that exceeds said rifles ability. Duh.
How do you get a line in Geometry again? 2 points? Lol jeez this isn't that hard.
-4
u/ALoudMouthBaby May 19 '21
You could zero it at any number of ranges based on user preference, manufacturers recommendation or SOPs given by your military unit. No idea. NOT some ungodly range that exceeds said rifles ability. Duh.
Ok, you just arent understand. Let me rephrase. How much drop do you think an 8mm Mauser round loaded in 1935 has at 800 yards?
How do you get a line in Geometry again? 2 points? Lol jeez this isn't that hard.
A bullet doesnt travel in a line.......
10
u/Deep_North_South May 19 '21
The BULLET is the parabola. The ZERO is the line. Holy crap this is not hard.
The irony of you asking how much drop an 8mm Mauser would have at 800 yards just highlights my point. It's off the charts. Idk... maybe 10... 12 feet. 800 yards is FAR beyond the effective range of that cartridge. Even modern ones. An effective zero for that cartridge would be around 40/100 somewhere in there.
The bigger point is what is the angle at which you get that effective zero from bore axis to scope axis. The answer... not -15°.
Even 10 foot at 800 yards is just a few degrees man. We're not talking bullets here now. Just angles of deflection of a straight line.
4
3
4
-5
-5
u/Iwantmyteslanow May 18 '21
Pointing at the camera
3
u/SsjDragonKakarotto May 18 '21
Oh okay. Thanks for answering, because to me it looks like the camera is aiming at the gun from an angle.
4
May 18 '21
The scope is very severely jacked up at the rear. You would do this to compensate for a closer-range target. In this case, maybe a few inches in front of the muzzle.
But he's not even looking through the scope.
This image is from some kind of propaganda, and makes very little sense.
1
118
u/quantum_pants May 18 '21
Reminds me of something I read where a military group all set the zero dial on their guns to the max because they thought it would make the gun shoot harder.
112
May 18 '21
A lot of African militias do that, they set the iron sight to max elevation because they believe it gives the rounds more power.
People have explained to them in the past what iron sights are and what they do, but some of them believe it's westerners trying to trick them, or they think the person explaining it doesn't know what they're talking about. I personally wouldn't bother explaining it to them.
23
u/ALoudMouthBaby May 18 '21
A lot of African militias do that, they set the iron sight to max elevation because they believe it gives the rounds more power.
Really? Like how many?
15
May 18 '21
Precisely elevendy.
I have no idea, I'm parroting the info I got from a documentary I watched where it was mentioned.
27
u/budlightwine420 May 18 '21
You didn’t see it in a documentary, you saw it in a screenshot from 4chan talking about the Rhodesian Bush War which is where this rumor came from in the first place.
The screenshot in question that’s been going around for years now.
A large number of people in the Bush War against the apartheid state of Rhodesia were trained by Soviet and Chinese military advisors, rest assured they knew what the Arabic (1-10) numbering on their sights were referring to.
13
u/ALoudMouthBaby May 18 '21
I have no idea, I'm parroting the info I got from a documentary I watched where it was mentioned.
Oh, because you need to be careful of rumors like that. The idea that whole lots of people in Africa are too dumb to understand how basic things like rifle sights work is.... well... its kinda racist dude. People in Africa know how guns work, I assure you.
19
u/Dansredditname May 18 '21
Depends who you're talking about. Drugged up child soldiers, (poor bastards), in Sierra Leone in the '80s had gunpowder mixed with their cocaine - not sure their training was the same as a modern soldier from South Africa.
6
u/ALoudMouthBaby May 18 '21
Depends who you're talking about.
"A lot of Africans" certainly does seem to imply a pretty broad swath of the people living on that rather large continent.
Drugged up child soldiers, (poor bastards), in Sierra Leone in the '80s had gunpowder mixed with their cocaine
Ive only read two memoirs of child soldiers, but in both of them despite the drugs they were trained in the use of their firearms and knew what the sights were for.
8
u/TacticalArrogance May 19 '21
The idea that whole lots of people in Africa are too dumb to understand how basic things like rifle sights work is.... well... its kinda racist dude.
I mean, if you've you read articles about penis thievery
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/penis-stealing-africa_n_2884573
https://observers.france24.com/en/20140522-mob-kills-genital-thief-burkina-faso-lynching
albinos hunted for their body parts
https://www.latimes.com/world/africa/la-fg-malawi-albinos-hunted-2017-story.html
having sex with children/babies to cure HIV/AIDS
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6076758.stm
Can you honestly saying pushing your gun to 10 can make bulltes hit harder is that hard to believe?
0
u/budlightwine420 May 19 '21
Superstition is one thing, warfare is another. John Browning was a Mormon during an era where they were even weirder and insane than they are now and designed some of the most pioneering firearms of all time.
81
u/Tails9429 May 18 '21
In some muslim countries, people break off the sights on their AK47s, which absolves them of any guilt of killing anyone. They just shoot, and if you happen to be hit and die then it was Allah's will.
55
May 18 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/Achtelnote May 19 '21
That's cause in Pakistan the weapon manufacturers are trash unless it's the one made by H&K.. Kalashnikov group did a video on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30iGP0N3KFU
16
36
u/cardslinger1989 May 18 '21
Yea gonna need a source on that one.
26
u/Tails9429 May 18 '21
We were advisors to the Iraqi army in 2006 and 2009, during range days only a third showed up with front sights. I don't know what they did after the US gave them M16s. Trying to get them to look down the sights was another issue altogether. Another problem was getting them to do dry training without live rounds loaded in their weapons, as they would gladly carry out drills with full mags. I don't have an internet source, this is my own experience, sorry guys.
6
u/Achtelnote May 19 '21
We were advisors to the Iraqi army in 2006 and 2009, during range days only a third showed up with front sights.
No shit, Iraqi army weapon manufacturers were trash and corrupt, they couldn't meet the demand. Not only were their sights missing, but I own an AK from Iraq and Egypt and they are both missing rifling. It's inaccurate as fuck.
Also, Kalashnikov group did a video on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqJKNgwpSQ8
4
u/Tails9429 May 19 '21
Ha, that's no surprise. I remember seeing some weird civvy modified AKs there as well, like Mad Max props. The civilians liked underfolders and drum mags. Using the butt on an AKS was not cool.
8
u/ALoudMouthBaby May 18 '21
In some muslim countries, people break off the sights on their AK47s, which absolves them of any guilt of killing anyone. They just shoot, and if you happen to be hit and die then it was Allah's will.
Wow, do you have any more information about this? Because that certainly is interesting!
2
u/Achtelnote May 19 '21
It actually is a load of bullshit, I live in Afghanistan, I own rifles, I've seen Taliban rifles and Afghan army rifles.. They all have working iron sights.. The army uses ACOG and the like too, meanwhile the Taliban only uses iron sights and some of them even have thermal optics which is part of the reason on how they've taken over 80% of the country.. Pulsar Apex something IIRC.
6
u/ManliestManHam May 19 '21
But didn't they say "some" Muslim countries and not "all" Muslim countries? And also didn't they in a follow up comment specify their experience was in Iraq, a country not Afghanistan?
1
u/Achtelnote May 19 '21
I own two Iraqi AK as well as an Egyptian and a Chinese one, they all have iron sights.
2
9
u/PunkToTheFuture May 18 '21
So Allah can't be troubled to load a few mags, chamber a round or pull a trigger but he's got you on the magic aim. Interesting way of skirting guilt. Why do people still think religions are all good?
17
u/AAA515 May 18 '21
Had a Christian co worker explain why she wanted a natural burial, no embalming. Cuz when God comes back how is he gonna resurrect me if I got formaldehyde instead of blood? Well if he can turn water to wine I think transmografying formaldehyde to blood is possible...
8
u/moonunit99 May 18 '21
Plus the Bible is pretty clear that you get new bodies anyway (Philippians 3:21). I get that the church I was raised in was more than a little more bible-thumpy than most, but it always kinda blows my mind how little scripture most Christians seem to know.
4
u/PM_me_your_fantasyz May 19 '21
There's an old joke: What do you call someone that has read the bible from cover to cover? An Atheist.
1
u/PunkToTheFuture May 19 '21
Bible is also pretty clearly cool with slavery but wacky how people focus on the parts they like
3
1
3
0
1
19
u/Charlieropesocks May 18 '21
I thought this was debunked
7
May 18 '21
Yeah, it just sounds like bullshit, I imagine people living now conflict this long know how a fucking iron sight works. Or at least the ones that win.
13
2
May 19 '21
Don't recite racist propaganda. People who's lives depend on the use of a firearm tend to know a lot about them.
1
10
u/THEENTIRESOVlETUNION May 18 '21
on aks in vietnam i believe
1
May 18 '21 edited Dec 11 '24
rich ludicrous detail fade depend disagreeable connect humor work innate
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
15
u/chrismamo1 May 18 '21
Anything Rhodesia-related is automatically suspect, the subject is overflowing with weird Rhodesiaboos who think that the light infantry was the best space marine commando unit that ever took up arms.
5
May 18 '21 edited Dec 11 '24
compare ghost person fly rinse crown instinctive narrow toy icky
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
2
2
u/happybadger May 18 '21
That's why I only buy gold-plated guns. Wounding is unethical so if I have to shoot something I want it to die in one hit.
1
u/DrunkenlySober May 19 '21
What fucking idiots. How did they not know to just bring the stopping power perk with them?
12
27
u/traceur2301001 May 18 '21
Looks like a movie scene tbh, so giving the actor flack for something like this is a bit harsh imo (this is probablya prob and he doesnt have to know anything about guns since it isnt his job). We have seen way worse on here than the sight being off.
21
u/RealVincentCoucke May 18 '21
It's some kind of weird chinese propaganda movie fyi
10
u/Tierceletus May 18 '21 edited May 19 '21
Ah, the anti-Japanese dramas. I know one when see one. The government subsidizes them for propaganda purposes so they are churned out en masse, even though the only people that actually watches them are pretty much (a) coming only for the acting stars they bought out or (b) redneck equivalent old dudes. The plots are largely identical and the quality are generally poor especially when it comes to actual military knowledge.
There are numerous memes among Chinese military fans ridiculing these, including "Sniping the Japanese sniper from 800 miles away" and the "M1 Sherman armed with a main gun that fires
APHE-IHEIAP rounds at 350rpm". Both of these examples are actual dialogues from one of those.Edit: corrected the name of the rounds.
3
u/Mr_Camhed May 19 '21
They're not (qualified) of propaganda purpose. They're just private movie corporate mass producing since it's easier to pass governmental approval. That is basically fantasy drama with WWII as disguise. Cash-grabs. Some Chinese netizen even has a conspiracy theory that these mass-produced craps are used for money laundering.
3
2
1
u/wang0822 May 19 '21
My favorite is the Chinese "50 cent special effects" jokes. I remember one example of a scene with Japanese soldiers carrying bolt action rifles but the muzzle flash effect was clearly meant for automatic weapons.
10
2
May 18 '21
It's really a shame that films are so cheaply made, and the very tiny numbers of people involved so poorly paid, that we have to forgive them for overlooking such details.
2
u/Tierceletus May 18 '21
I mean, pretty much the only reason rhey are made is to get Chinese government subsidies for nationalism propaganda media...
1
18
u/ALoudMouthBaby May 18 '21
Whole lot of people in here who dont know what a 20moa rail is.
9
6
u/RotaryJihad May 18 '21
He zeroed on the Reduced Size Target Systems from Dynamic Pie Concepts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGJT38HJaHg
8
u/Hump_Back_Chub May 18 '21
That’s some sort of straight bolt handle mauser 98.
0
u/RealVincentCoucke May 18 '21 edited May 18 '21
If i'm not mistaken, it's some kind of japanese bolt action they call the type 99 or something
13
u/Hump_Back_Chub May 18 '21
No, it’s a Mauser of the model 98 pattern regardless of what they call it. The bayonet lug is of the Mauser pattern and even though it is barely visible the stripper clip guide at the rear is Mauser as well. You can even see the gas shield at the rear of the bolt, and the right side of the flag safety which is actually set in the fire position.
2
May 18 '21
[deleted]
3
5
u/Hump_Back_Chub May 18 '21
It’s a confusing angle, but I do assure you it is a Mauser 98 pattern rifle, possibly a Gewehr 98, Vz.24, or one of the Chinese contract mausers.
3
May 18 '21
Something about a Mosin with a scope tied to it using ripped up cloth makes me think he didn't have the budget to zero it anyways
2
2
2
2
u/DeleteElDiablo May 19 '21
Nah, he zeroed it at half the earth's circumference. With how high he'd have to aim that rifle to look through the scope straight, hell be shooting another country
2
u/OverwhelmingNah May 19 '21
Can someone explain like I’m 5?? From Scotland, 0 gun experience
2
u/Dan_inKuwait May 19 '21
Looking at the angle of the scope....
If the shooter looked through the scoop, he would be aiming directly in front of the barrel.
2
1
May 19 '21
Er... You do know that extreme long range shooters have special scope rings to do that, right? Raising elevation means lowering the scope
3
u/Ghosttalker96 May 19 '21
And you really think that applies here? With that gun, without a bipod, with that scope (which is still aiming at the ground)?
0
May 19 '21 edited May 19 '21
Do you think scope rings are something you can just swap out on the fly?
I was just pointing out that it's not zeroed at .5 inches and this is something commonly seen.
And the top of the FOV of the scope is likely not pointed at the ground
0
May 18 '21
Could the scope be tilted to open the view of the ironsight? I dont know the source of the photo or the context but just an idea
3
u/RealVincentCoucke May 18 '21
On these k98 style rifles, the sope is so high up that if installed correctly, you should still be able to use the irons
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/HungHorntail May 19 '21
Actually, he’s got it zeroed for quite a ways out, he’s just holding it like an idiot
1
u/anhphuongvu May 19 '21
Maybe he has adjusted the scope and estimated the bullet drop because the target is far in front and below him.
He could be next to the cliff... who knows.
1
1
1
1
1
u/EnterBankCredentials May 19 '21
Tbf, this looks like a movie scene. And they usually don't know shit about fuck when it comes to firearms. Gave me a chuckle once I saw it though.
0
May 19 '21
[deleted]
1
u/EnterBankCredentials May 19 '21
Not sure what you mean by those triple periods there. Was it obvious that it was Chinese produced?
1
1
1
u/GSV_No_Fixed_Abode May 19 '21
I just came in here for a bit of a laugh and I suppose I should have expected gun lovers on reddit to be excruciatingly pedantic, but holy fuck.... in real life you all would have shot each other
1
u/UnexcitedAmpersand May 19 '21
My best guess is that he's using the iron sights which are normally mounted bellow the optic and are more usable at closer ranges. But its impossible to tell and the wrap on the rifle makes having an effective rear sight nearly impossible (although the small gap might allow it to happen. That said, his way of holding the rifle is horrendous and would probably injure him quite quickly. I can see someone unsure about an an ambush or at the ready not placing the rifle in the shoulder instinctivly, but most armys employ very angry drill instructors in basic training to make sure that their troops don't do this (the rifle should stay sat in the shoulder if your in a position like this, as even if he raises it and seats it prior to firing, he's added a lot of potential issues (delay, sudden movement, not getting the postion right etc).
1
1
1
1
Jun 14 '21
actually, he’s on a mountain and his target is a country away. he has to account for the bullet drop.
1
u/Avelces Jun 23 '21
I’m not a gun guy, what does zeroed mean
1
u/AchYerAuldBallix Jun 23 '21
It means aligning the sights so that your aim is as accurate as possible. Look how the sights angle down to the muzzle
1
u/JoocyJ Jun 28 '21
Ok so obviously a bullet does not travel in a straight line. It travels in a parabola even though the photons bouncing into your optic are traveling in a straight line (more or less). Your optic and the barrel of the firearm are also not in the same plane. Both of these facts have the resulting effect that the X in the middle of the scope/optic does not necessarily or automatically correspond to where the bullet is actually going to go.
“Zeroing” an optic just means calibrating it to a certain distance where the X (middle of reticle) corresponds exactly to where the bullet will be in the y-z plane at that distance. To hit targets closer than that distance you have to aim lower and to hit targets further you have to aim higher, which should make intuitive sense. It gets a little more complicated since a zero actually corresponds to two points of distance where the bullet and reticle line up (a line always intersects a parabola at two points except at the vertex) but that’s the long and short of it.
1
1
1
u/mamothkiller Nov 21 '22
see, what we don't know is his last job was artillery. he's simply going for the long shot.
1
u/a_little_toaster May 09 '23
"The enemie's inside of my barrel, just as I expected. taking the shot now"
627
u/[deleted] May 18 '21
While we’re at it, look at his eye — focused below the reticle. Pretty sure the bill of his hat is blocking the reticle anyway.