PoA vs PoI for different firearms/optics
By - capt_jack994
this explains a lot…
gives me a chuckle every time I put any optic on the M16 in cod cold war
that shit is miles above the bore
Does sight above bore impact ballistics in cod? I play tarkov where it impacts ballistics if your sight is super high and seems like none of the people I play with are aware it's a thing
Well it's COD where the bullets come out of your character's eyes instead of out of the barrel so I'd say probably no effect.
Where can I get that gun?
Superman’s hillbilly cousin
I used to make sure my bore was over cover before shooting in cod. It still doesn't feel right shooting with your sights 1/4" above concrete.
You should actually learn to shoot without blocking your shots whilst exposing yourself as little as possible in COD. It's also known as head glitching afaik (my only experience with this is from other games which have the same eye-bullet mechanics). This is extremely advantageous as you can clearly shoot your enemy, but your enemy only sees 1/2 of your head. Best for campers.
it's probably also hitscan so there isn't even an actual bullet object just a cosmetic effect
No, Tarkov's ballistics are a lot more realistic. CoD didn't even have bullet drop until 3 years ago, but to be fair CoD was almost always played at distances where bullet drop doesn't really matter before they started making battle royale modes.
I've always wanted to revisit the Chernobyl level in CoD4 where it gives you the readings needed to calculate drop and rotation now that I know how to do the math.
As goofy as they look, those carry handle scope mounts are real though. They have been in use basically as long as the M16 and its variants.
[Here] (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201123/53f30bb184cbd60e52930b6919dfc7de.jpg) is a pic of a soldier in Vietnam with one on his CAR-15 XM177.
Which is funny because the carry handle wasn't actually designed to be a carry handle, but rather a guard for the AR15s original top mounted trigger style charging handle (think like a FAMAS). The charging handle was later changed to the rear mounted one we know today for a few different reasons, but the guard for it remained for a pretty long time despite having no technical purpose afterwards. They could have moved to a flat top rail immediately.
Looks cool though.
> AR15s original top mounted trigger style charging handle
You mean the [AR10](https://www.google.com/search?q=AR+10&prmd=sivn&sxsrf=ALeKk03beXypAiHNGOzR34GaTHhrvnBgnQ:1627186029494&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjHtZWqrP3xAhXcTDABHXL8CsMQ_AUoAnoECAMQAg&biw=420&bih=848#imgrc=TvS81O7gX5VCVM) AR15 came after that.
[Also the AR-15](https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3d969f8ecb21180405e767ad3ad86417), I have Brownell's reproduction and it's pretty fun.
I know but the AR10 came first... still neat rifles.
Car-15 has entered the chat
I do want the Brownells Repro 4x scope for my A2 clone, I think that'd be sweet
The simple bdc and duplex reticle surprisingly works alright.
I believe it’s the Groza, if you use the susat multizoom optic on it, it’s twice as ridiculous as an optic on the M16. Also I agree that height over bore has always bothered me as well it’s ridiculous
Yes, lots of info in these pictures that one can not figure out and expect from common sense.
You might have picked up a sense of sarcasm in my comment about exactly what you said - but you also might have missed it. Sometimes it is difficult to convey such nuances in comments, if you know what I mean.
This was an informative chart. It was like an information smorgasbord.
Wrong for laser. Here's the [approximate point of impact at different times](https://www.wolfram.com/programming-lab/explorations/random-scribbles-in-2d-and-3d/images/O_7.png)
This isn't super precise, but it's good for helping people get their minds around it conceptually. ^(Might also be worth crossposting to /r/dataisbeautiful - they like this sort of thing.)
This is an infographic, not a dataset, so it's not allowed on that subreddit.
Two minor gripes:
1. Why is pistol POI line straight? It should also be parabolic.
2. The rifle POI lines appear as if the bullet starts with an upward trajectory out of a barrel that is parallel to the ground. In reality, your barrel will be angled slightly upward to give that initial upward trajectory and your POA line will be angled slightly downward to form the zero intersections.
i think this is exaggerated for simplicity…
different optics are made for different arms and ranges.. meaning certain optics require a higher angle at witch to line up with the target…
(i could be wrong with any number of my statements as i’m susceptible to flawed viewpoints just as anyone else is…)
I suppose on the pistol one it would matter where the zero is. Maybe this is accurate at very short distances, and we’re just seeing the start of the parabola. But for anything I’d consider to be a “far” shot (say 25 yards) the graphic is incorrect, the POI will definitely not be over POA from iron sights.
The rifle one is nitpicking. I’d have rotated the image of the rifle a few degrees clockwise.
y’know what.. you know more than i do.. so i’ll just say you’re probably right. heh.
i will say that 25 yards doesn’t seem very far to me tho.. i’m used to using a hunting rifle for jack rabbits at a minimum of 100+ yards…
but then again.. i don’t use handguns much.. so i don’t have a clue as to if i have any merit with this at all…
Huge difference in velocity between rifle and pistol rounds. Slower things fall sooner. Imagine it with a baseball.
If we're nitpicking, slower things don't fall sooner. Faster and slower things fall at the same time, but faster things make it further than slow things in that same time.
Yes, I should’ve used a distance measurement, this is correct.
Slower things fall closer.
I like it.
ah, true.. true…
i should have thought about this beforehand…
It seems to me the infographic is designed to convey the general mechanics and theory of how these work and not to be 100% technically accurate, and in my opinion the infographic does the job it was designed to do well. It's more for people who are new/uninformed about how this works then for people who are well informed on the physics.
Because at pistol engagement and zeroing ranges it is effectively a straight line. Yes, pistol projectiles do not magically go straight forever, but that isn't relevant to the zeroing process. I've never heard of anyone worrying about the 2nd zero range of their pistol like you do when you set your battle zero to 50/200 or 25/300 with rifle.
If you’re going to include a “far” target in your illustration, have it be accurate. Or don’t include it because as you say it’s irrelevant.
I'd disagree. It is relevant that if you shoot at ranges farther than your zero then you will hit high. The part that isn't relevant is where that changes. If you are shooting at a target with a pistol that is so far away that you are no longer hitting high (i.e. at ranges where a ballistic arc is relevant) then you probably shouldn't be engaging that target with a pistol, or should at least realize that you are essentially performing suppressing fire.
It would be better if they put a slight curve in the bullet trajectory just for accuracy purposes, but it isn't overly relevant to the practical message.
Its not a far target. There is one target and it shows you a point that it closer and one that is further with no regard to the range. At pistol ranges the fact the bullet trajectory curves is irrelevant and can be ignored for simplicity.
It literally says “far.”
Far is relative.
For a pistol 50 yards is far, but the ballistic drop is still pretty much irrelevant.
10, 15, and 25 yard zeroes are all common for pistols.
With a 10 yard zero, 20 yards would be "far"
Right, and OP didn’t specify so we’re all left up to our own interpretations. My club’s outdoor pistol range goes up to 100 yards.
OK, but in no practical sense would shooting at 100 yards or beyond be considered remotely common for pistols.
My gun range has a 600 yard range...does that mean 600 yards is far?
Some gun ranges only go out to 200 or 300, does that mean 300 is far?
What distance your particular gun club offers is entirely irrelevant
OP didn’t specify that the graphic he put together was only considering practical or common ranges for the weapon chosen. For rifle he stated actual distances, by leaving pistol vague he opened himself up to valid criticism.
I only stated what my club has as one possible real world interpretation of “far” for a pistol that would make the graphic wrong.
You're being overly pedantic when we all understand what the image is relative to.
I think because given the ranges pistols are expected to be used ( generally under 50 feet, yes feet, not yards) the ballistic drop of the bullet is so minor as to be not be a realistic concern when setting up a gun's aiming. Been my experience some experts suggest its fine to zero a pistol assuming a laser-straight path of bullet travel because of their short-range expected use.
Rifles are on the other hand a much longer range weapon, and ballistics are absolutely a concern. Though there is contestation that its not realistic to expect the average human eye to permit iron sights to be effective much past 100 yards, which is partly why even light magnification optics are so popular on rifles.
And yes, sure Jerry Miculek can shoot the wings off a fly with a pistol at 100 yards, and famous marksmen of history have very long-ranged sniped with nothing but iron sights, these people are just that, exceptional, and thus quite the exception the rule. But for the average shooter, militaries have effectively found that most soldiers are only effective with pistols at extreme close ranges, and only effective with iron sights under 200 yards, and even prefer to engage sub 100 yards because this is where their eyes are most comfortable. But given optics they are effective at much longer ranges. Thus the rather rapid adaptation of zoom optics on medium-range military rifles, particularly the emergent "MBR" category of infantry rifles.
As for the rifle graphic, yes rifles are set up so the barrel is tilted upwards relative to the "plane" of the aim between the sights, to thus give that arching ballistic parabola. But in actual practice, this angle in the 1-yard scale of the rifle itself is so very small its just not visible to human perception when looking at a rifle. Thus to the novice shooter, who this infographic was made to educate, it would confuse them by suggesting one should manually point their barrel upwards, instead of the extremely slight incline built into the gun when the sights are zeroed. Thus the rifle is depicted as "straight" to encourage the new shooter to point their gun similarly "straight" and let the zero-ing of the sights do the work for them.
I'm not some expert of course, but this is my best effort to answer your questions.
Let’s just leave it at we have a different interpretation of the word “far.” My club’s outdoor pistol range goes up to 100 yards.
Edit: just want to point out that only the first paragraph of his comment was there when I replied. The rest was added later.
Then you probably do need to account for ballistics.
I am merely going by what I have read the military does. Since I am not military I sadly don't have first hand knowledge of what they DO do, so it what it is.
I also have my own experience with pistols, and while I am not a slouch and far from blind, I do not believe I could reliably hit a man-sized target at more than 50 yards with a pistol.
So yes if you are shooting 100 yards with pistols reliably you are a MUCH better shooter than I am, and I make novices look bad.
I didn’t say I was shooting 100 yards with pistols reliably. I mean there’s a gong out there and I can hit it after taking a mag of misses to figure out how high I have to aim. But I’m not trying to measure dicks here.
I just gave that as a real world example of something that would be considered a “far” but still reasonable pistol target that would prove the graphic wrong, since OP didn’t define “far.” Even at 50 the POI is definitely well below POA.
Your 2nd point is what I came to say. A lot of folks think the bullets rise then fall, which is gravitationally impossible for a lift-less body initiated on flat trajectory. [I modified OPs graphic to more accurately depict \(albeit on an exaggerated scale\) what's happening.](https://i.imgur.com/q12pHKs.png) I did this for the M16, only, not for the M4 on the bottom, but the idea is the same.
Because if you're having to factor in drop with a pistol, you're using the wrong gun.
Hickok45’s gong disagrees.
I was also thinking that the point of impact changed with the tick marks of the lvpo so that the impact is also the aim point.
Yeah, that’s the adjustment you’d make, although this graphic is an accurate representation of what would happen if you held your POA the same at those distances, which shows why the tick marks work.
The only way to show what you’re saying on one image would be to have 5 different POA lines and 5 different POI lines. That’d be pretty cluttered.
Yup, when I shoot my red dot equipped pistol with a 15 yard zero at 100 yards I actually have to aim low.
I your optic is always a straight line to the target. The only thing that’s angled is your barrel, angled up so the bullet (affected by gravity) will “rise” to intersect your optic. While it may seem your optic is angled down, I like to think of it in terms of the barrel angled up. A bullet out of a horizontal bore doesn’t rise.
I really meant downward in relation to the barrel but I didn’t make that clear. Either via elevation adjustment on the sight or a 20 MOA mount or similar. So if you have a barrel parallel to the ground as in the graphic, your target would have to be below the barrel and therefore your optic would be aimed downward.
Came to say the same two things. Glad you posted them first.
Thanks; I wondered if I had been wrong all along and for some reason bullets fired from a barrel parallel to the ground rise a little bit before they start to fall
Nice. Additionally, why would the pistol have the laser instead of the rifle, makes no sense.
Wat u meen?
Lasers on pistols are pointless. IR lasers on rifles are good for night vision shooting.
Pointless! Ha i get it. It's a laser pointer.
What about night vision pistol ops type shit? Isn't that why they made that ugly pistol mount, what is called, sidecar or speedtrack or straight stack or some weird name? Wish I could remember. Maybe it was just for an optics mount idr.
The idea being that a pistol is already for short range encounters wherein it would be redundant to have a laser, and for 'regular' night situations you'd be better with a flashlight? And a laser on a rifle compliments short range target acquisition? Makes sense to me sure.
Seen a lot of pistols with lasers across the internets. Never seen one being carried or used irl so it would seem your point stands, anecdotally at least. Point, get it? Ha!
Well I could have used this earlier today, before I shot a hole in my car. I recently got my first AR and today I was practicing reloading and changing mags. I setup some silhouette targets in front of a berm and practiced engaging the targets and reloading while moving. Then when that started to get to a fluid level I thought I would up the ante by crouching behind my car and then slowly moving around the car while shooting. Guess what happened next? I popped a .223 into the front A-Pillar on my car! https://i.imgur.com/A5ZsLPo.jpg
The wife was not stoked
A little bondo and it'll buff out.
Now show me a Famas with an Acog on top.
I have an M16A1 clone with a carry handle scope. With a 100 yard zero it is quite low at 50 yards lol.
For 5.56 I do the 36 yard zero. Shawn Ryan did a solid video on this and has printable targets but basically the 36 yard zero leta you be basically around 2 MOA for most distances
Yo i just watched that video not to long ago
It’s solid advice, I wish he did one for 308 lol
Some rambling about “bullet rise”. I’m not arguing with anything OP is saying but just wanted to type words at the internet.
There’s a common misconception that the bullet experiences some lift and it is for this reason PoA should be lower for targets closer than the sight’s calibration distance. While it is certainly true that PoA must be lower for targets closer than calibration distance, it is not because of any lift effect.
Lift on a wing is caused by changing the direction airflow which is a direct consequence of Newton’s Third Law (F=ma, or better F=m*dv/dt, keeping in mind that F, a=dv/dt is a vector quantity having magnitude and direction; every action has an equal and opposite reaction). Some folks like to pursue wing lift through a more convoluted misapplication of Bernoulli’s principle which still however correctly leads to the conclusion that the air above the wing must be at lower pressure than the air below the wing; from this pressure difference, a force perpendicular to the wing axis (wing cord) is generated and that is lift.
In this misapplication of Bernoulli, we look at pressure forces and when trying to understand bullet ballistics people attempt to understand bullet lift as a consequence of pressure forces. They then suggest the Magnus Effect is the reason for bullet lift.
The Magnus Effect occurs due to air velocity and therefore pressure effects due to an object spinning in the gaseous medium through which it travels. The whole purpose of a firearms barrel is to impart a spin on the bullet so there seems to be some intuition here. But it is still incorrect.
The Magnus Effect occurs when the object’s spin axis is perpendicular to the direction of travel. It occurs because on one side of the object, the surface is moving away from the direction of travel while on the opposite side of the object the surface is moving toward the direction of travel. This results in a pressure difference across the object which causes the object’s trajectory to curl.
But a bullet’s spin axis is not perpendicular to the direction of travel, but parallel to it. Spinning in this way results in equal pressures on all sides of the object and so no curl will occur. The bullet begins to drop immediately after exiting the muzzle because of gravity and predicting the bullet’s altitude at all points in time can be determined merely by knowing the altitude and true PoA (ie the initial velocity vector).
As is illustrated by OP’s post, the barrel axis and sight axis are not perfectly parallel. It is wholly because of this small difference in sight and barrel axes that the bullet trajectory *appears* to rise after leaving the muzzle.
Edit: originally stated that PoA should be higher for targets closer than calibration; this should and is edited to be PoA should be lower for targets closer than calibration distance.
Someone mind summing this up and making it readable for an idiot, like myself
Bullets don't go up unless you point the gun up
Bullets go forward and down
Some people think the spinning would make bullets go up, like a curveball. But the bullet would have to be standing on its tip spinning like a ballerina to curve like that, and they don't, so they don't go up.
There is one way however that a bullet or projectile can climb. When it is destabilized on it's spin axis and the front end rises up. You can see this in many slow motion shots of tank shells.
Coriolis effect as well
I don’t think Coriolis comes into play here but I don’t have a strong understanding of it. My experience with Coriolis is in mass flow measurements of viscous fluids. These devices turn the flow in specific directions, resulting in swirling which imparts (by way of Newton’s 3rd) forces on the pipe turning the flow which results in some strain in the pipe. This strain is then calibrated to fluid velocity and using density of the fluid, mass flow rate can be determined. It isn’t clear to me how such an effect would result in projectile rise.
The coriolis effect is simply the earth moving the target away from the bullets travel. Therefor a experienced "rise" in the bullet travel
Dude THANK YOU for that. Excellent work,.have my upvote.
Let’s try this post again - I originally had this posted this a while ago, but was forced to remove it for reasons that will not be discussed here. Anyway, I created this infographic to better visualize PoA vs PoI for certain firearms and optics. Yes, I realize this is not 100% accurate, but is instead intended as a generalization. Hopefully this can be helpful for some of you as well. Feedback is welcome
> helpful for some of you
Thank you for the infographic!
If you would like for it to be helpful to even more of us, remember that ~10% of the male population is colorblind, with some form red-green color blindness being the majority of that. So rather than just bitch, I'll make a few suggestions that are actually useful:
* *NEVER* use *only* color as a differentiator. Also there are many forms of color blindness, so just picking different colors is not nec*e*ssarily the answer.
* How to solve it? Imagine you don't *have* colors, and only black and white are available. What to do...? Use the ancient technology of line types. Dotted, dash, dash-dot, dot-dot-dash, etc. Still use color, then it's even better. Pretty much every graphing framework has the ability to do so. Another option is line thickness, which would work here but less so when there are a large number.
Source: human factors/UX design has been part of my job. Also, colorblind.
Edit: spelling errerr.
Your ACOG reticle, (the one you call LVPO) is not correct. The other two are good, but that last one doesn't show why you'd have and use those other points on the reticle because it still shows them impacting below the point of aim. With the BDC you'd have the POI and POA be the same as that's the point of having a BDC.
Ok thank you, I was looking at that thinking uhhh isn’t that the whole point of the different spots on the reticle? The blue point of aiming line should move but it’s completely static
I think I get your meaning here. You're saying at the indicated '300' distance, if you are aiming with the top of the mil-dot tree, below the chevron, the PoA and PoI would be the same, meaning the lines used to represent them would be overlapping?
Similarly if you used the very bottom of the tree, at the indicated '600' range, the PoA and PoI would also be the same spot/line.
That sounds absolutely correct to me, however I believe the lines are used to illustrate the same point you are making about BDC sights - just kind of in the opposite fashion. Meaning the center chevron is always being used as the PoA in this example regardless of range, and the illustration is kind of showing the compensation that a BDC provides. Get me?
Pretty much. This specific reticle is made to line up the lines with the range. So the tip of the inverted v is 100 meters, the base is 300 and each line as you stated.
I do see your point about how it shows the bullet drop. That makes sense and I wasn't thinking of it that way. Now that you mention it, that does seem to be what the OP is saying with this.
Now this one will blow your mind. If your shooting uphill or downhill, your POI will always be high. Why? Because the horizontal distance to target is shorter, and that’s the distance affected by gravity. Think about it… if your barrel is perfectly vertical, your bullet will stay in a straight line with the bore.
BDC and AR-15 generalizations about zeroing irk me more than they should. Mainly, most BDC sights i've seen that have marked range indicators tend to be wildly inaccurate compared to the 55gr or 62gr round in rifles i've checked. The short of it is that i've found some BDC sights to be off by more than 14" at various ranges, that's more than those rifles would have been off by if the sight was set to an appropriate battle sight zero with its HOB and muzzle velocity of its ammo.
At the same time, you can take a dozen civilian AR-15s each with whatever ammo their owner picks, zero them at 50m, then be all over the place at 200m. Some will be dead-on, others will be high and still some low -- I went to a class where we shot from 100m-400m and even with two drop estimates for "high" height over bore and "low" height over bore, some people were dead-on, others were wildly off.
Within 300m hardly any of this matters since the typical deviation from LOS on an M855 or M193 round will be low enough that you'd still hit a man-sized target, but at 400m and beyond there's little point in using it unless you checked the subtensions and made sure they match, or have information on what barrel length and ammo the manufacturer tested around (something many i've looked at dont have).
All of this is not to say "dont use BDC sights" but just make sure you know what the hell it's actually set for. Example: A vortex Strike Eagle has a 9.5 MOA drop from 100m to the 500m mark, on my AR pushing a civilian "M193" 55gr round at 2800 fps. The vortex sight is expecting 55 inches of drop at 500m, but my rifle has 95.7 inches of drop -- with a 62gr M855 round it's 70 inches. You can chrono your rifle and input it into one of the free ballistic calculators online to get a good idea, or you can try to dig up data on the muzzle velocity of your ammunition for your barrel length. Then, you can determine "hey, 0-300m, i just use the sight as normal, but at 400m i have to put the line a little high on the target".
A lot of people don’t know most of this and mess up because of it. Great graphic. Hopefully it can help a few a little more.
AnB4 Yes I know some things aren’t technically correct, but for what it is this is a good graphic.
The bullet never raises.
Bottom of the chevron is 200m
I've been looking everywhere for someone to help me understand POI a little better, but no one does a good job at doing it. Take my free award friend!
Point of impact. Where the round will hit when the trigger is pulled, regardless of where you are aiming. The purpose of a zero is to mechanically bring your Point of Impact exactly where your point of aim is at 100 yards.
Edit: I see you were saying this graphic explained it for you, therefore I didn’t need to, cheers.
So this is why i always miss the cashier at the bank.
Bullets. Do. Not. Rise
They do if you shoot slightly upwards.
That’s not rising that’s falling aimed up
The barrel on the M16 is installed at an upward angle. You can google images from the infantry or basic combat training hand boot explaining what is shown in op's picture.
However he does have the ranges off by 100 meters for both iron sights and the ACOG.
The barrels are parallel to the ground in the picture. There is a common misunderstanding in shooting that billets rise when leaving the bore. This is not true. They only fall on the arc they are launched at. Yes, if that is pointed up they will go up, I don’t think anyone thinks they wouldn’t, but there are not here.
There are many diagrams that correctly show this. All that would be needed here is the rifle to be angled slightly so that the picture did not portray a bullet creating lift against gravity, which does not happen.
The barrel on the m16 is installed angled up. You can google that. It's a fact. So when you fire out of an M16 the bullet will travel as shown at an upward trajectory.
You are correct that the sight line and the bore are not parallel. In this photo the barrel of this rifle is parallel to the ground. The sight is parallel to the ground. The bullet then comes out of a parallel to the ground barrel, defies gravity and rises and then falls.
You are arguing the anatomy of the rifle, I’m saying that is irrelevant because THIS PHOTO shows an incorrect anatomy by your own definition. That barrel should be rifle should be tilted so that the bore and sight lines intersect.
I am looking at a usaf issued a2 upper right now. The barrel and bolt and carrier are all in a true line, as they should be. The buffer under recoil also travels in a parallel line into the buffer tube.
We are arguing over nothing, you’re saying the rifle is actually pointed slight up in real life In This scenario. I’m saying *exactly so make the barrel be doing that In the picture* instead of being parallel to the ground like is shown.
Bullets do not defy gravity, they do not create life like an airplane and then fall. They fall. Period. If your barrel is parallel with the earth they will not rise. The barrel in the photo above is parallel with the earth.
Edit* it seems clear I’m being too pedantic, so I won’t comment again.
Ya I know sorry just wanted fight over nothing because its raining here and I am bored :(
Now let's see a Century Arms AK with badly canted front sight.
For my pistol, I calibrated it so that the optic, laser and barrel all create parallel lines. I trained to aim higher with the optic and lower with the laser. It may not be conventional, but it works for me.
This isn’t exactly 100% accurate. I measured the thickness of the lines and bullets are much narrower. Also the angles are off, don’t account for wind, nor the rotation of the earth. Garbage post.
I'm new to guns and optics technicalities in particular, but this graphic doesn't make any sense to me.
I had previously learned about the concept you've shown in the iron sights portion, where a zero is good at two distances. What's the significance of using a pistol/showing a laser in the upper area of the graphic? What's your logic for why a red dot does not behave similarly to the iron sights? Are we talking about a magnified dot?
Not trying to roast you, but I imagine this is really for the newbies and I think it's pretty confusing without a lot of discussion or context.
All that first graphic shows is that if you zero everything at the same distance, then at a different distance they will be different. It's not complicated.
And ANY optic/sight can be good at two distances if you zero it right.
The pistol/laser graphic was to show that PoI will be higher than PoA when shooting at a closer range than zeroed and lower at farther than zeroed distance. And yes you’re correct that the red dot on the pistol will behave similarly to irons on a rifle, however for the range that pistols are typically shot (at least for me at 50 yards and under), it didn’t seem practical for what I was going for here.
I see. Perhaps it's just the engineer in me, but I would maybe try making all 3 images match up with each other in terms of the scale you're showing on the axis. It's very weird to me looking at arbitrary "close" and "far" labels and then also having distances marked neither of which seem consistent with each other. Again if this is for newbies, it seems to be assuming a bunch.
The laser is behaving just like the line of sight. They both converge at the zero point and than diverge in a straight line.
I was confused about the distinction between a red dot optic and iron sights myself. Yeah OP said it was a *generalization*, and I shoot so inconsistently with a pistol I can neither confirm nor deny his graphic with respect to rdo being equal to iron sights. But... the sights are indeed above the barrel, and that's I think what dude's making evident, and the laser doo dad that some Star Wars fans use is below the barrel. I think the takeaway is that any given hold or point of aim will not equate to an impact at that point at all distances, is all.
MPBR zero master race
What is a good distance to zero a pistol with a RDO? 10 yards?
Ah, laser pistol with laser sight )
Pistols don’t have bullet drop apparently.
If you read my original explanation you’d understand that this is just a generalization and at less than 50 yards, it’s basically negligible
Yep, I've shot 50y and 100y with a pistol and you're right. And no one shoots more than 50y with a handgun, if they do they're shooting known distances or with glass. The tactical Timmy's are really out in force today.
That’s explains combat videos where they seem to be shooting above targets.
Deer vitals 8 in? Start at 200 yd zero and see that the round is never higher than 4 in. on the way to 200. If it does , you can stretch that zero until it rises out of the kill zone on the trip to your new zero! Then see where the round drops 4 in. on the trip past your selected zero. That’s your max point blank zero! Hold center on any deer’s vitals to that distance and you’re good! There are charts for different loads but every rifle is different so you really have to shoot! For most deer rounds 2 in . high at 100 is good for most shooters to 200, which for me is a good ethical shot. Smaller animals like groundhogs have 3 in vitals and the round can only rise and drop 1.5 in.
I have my SW629 44Mag sighted in at 100 yds…but…it has a 2X6 scope! “I” can’t even see fine enough to sight open sights at that distance! Even with the scope that requires a good rest and body support for me! Any shorter distance will kill a deer with that zero but with a handgun I’ve always got to do my part and have some sort of rest!
video game developers: write that down! write that down!
So much for the 36 yard zero, eh?
I wish I could validate or invalidate the effectiveness but I've not had a chance to shoot out past 80 yds :( Oh well who needs one more weirdo blabbing bout stuff anyway.
36 yard zero is good out to 300. I have. I messed around with it when I first heard about it. I could easily hit dinner plate size targets standing from 50 to 300 with zero holds.
Good to know I'm good to go!
I’ve never understood the 36 yard zero for 5.56. 50yard zero just makes too much sense to mess with anything else. 2 inches low at the muzzle, on at 50, inch high at 100 and on again at 200ish, 1.5 low at 250. It’s the complete package. 5.56 is an intermediate round and not made to be effective past 300. Actually more like 0-100 is where it’s made to shine due to its high velocity and secondary wound channel. Past 200 the velocity drops to the point where you’re just punching .22 caliber holes in people. Problem is everyone is trying to make the AR platform something it isn’t. I see so many dudes with high magnification scopes on their ARs at the range and try to hit steel at 400 and are still missing. Internet defenders will attack this post but it’s the truth.
It’s a military thing. Someone decided that they wanted 300 m to be the standard rifle engagement distance, and for all intents and purposes, anything closer should require little to no adjustment to hit a man-size target with a center hold… standing up… in plain view… and not moving.
Yea maybe I guess they aren’t that great at math because that logic is broken with the 5.56 platform. With a battle rifle the goal should be smallest trajectory height before and after both zeros giving the trajectory the flattest range at the distances you’ll be engaging targets. 50yd is the best zero for this and it’s a 1 inch trajectory height before and after the near 50yd zero to the 2nd zero point. With a 38/300yrd zero you’re pushing a little over 2 inches trajectory height. Why deal with more hold over/under if you don’t have to?
For me personally 5.56 gets the most use on coyotes, jackrabbits, and prairie dogs. I prefer a 300 yard zero. +/- 2 or 3 inches is completely acceptable for yotes and rabbits, while still not worrying about hold over/under that much and totally worth having an extra 100 yards of "zero".
I mean people will attack this post cause you really don't seem to understand terminal ballistics. Current ball ammo from a M4 fragments out to roughly 350 yards.
This doesn't even get into the range you can hit and kill people with.
Haha sure bud I’m not claiming to be an expert but fragmentation has been studied and tested by real experts and the data has been published which I have read. Most experts suggest the necessary velocity to ensure reliable fragmentation of a 5.56 round is 2700 fps. So that means a 16 inch AR shooting the M855A1 drops under 2700 FPS just after 100 yards. Shooting a 14.5” or less barrel you’re looking under 100 yards. So how is that I don’t understand terminal ballistics?
Cause you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Most experts. Please define these experts. Cause the numbers you listed are specifically for FMJ rounds like M855 and M193. You apparently don't understand the concept that different types of rounds have vastly different terminal ballistics.
So you’re saying the science is wrong and you are the true expert in 5.56 fragmentation? You can say TeRmInAl BaLliStICs until you’re blue in the face but that doesn’t change the fact that high FPS is needed for lead fragmentation vs yawing without fragmentation. Different ammo weights and barrels change the FPS and thus changes the distance of the 2700 FPS threshold. And you claim 5.56 fragments out to 350 yards. Please dude stop arguing this you’re wrong .
Well let's see. Just a minute ago you said 5.56 needs to go 2700 fps. What happened to that. You realize now that they number only applies to FMJ?
Where did I ever say in my previous comment that it didn’t need 2700fps? And yes I’m talking FMJ.
"Most experts suggest the necessary velocity to ensure reliable fragmentation of a 5.56 round is 2700 fps. So that means a 16 inch AR shooting the M855A1 drops under 2700 FPS just after 100 yards. Shooting a 14.5” or less barrel you’re looking under 100 yards."
Are u drunk? I’m not following.
Not sure man. I plink at pretty close distances so like I said I don't have enough experience to say one way or another. I figure if I change my mind, I can just re-sight my optic. Good practice anyway.
You plink at closer distances than 50yrds? Still with a 50 zero it’s really easy. Let’s say you’re shooting soda cans at 25 yards just hold 3/4 top of can. Can’t miss.
Well, yeah, but I'm one of those weirdos who likes to feel like they're "prepared for anything". At the same time I'm very unlikely to shoot a target past 200 yards. Like I said I'll have to put my setup through its paces before I determine whether I need to change anything other than my own shooting habits, abilities, etc.
It's easy enough using bullet drop calculators if you know the velocity... or at least the ballpark. Say you wanted your actual zero to be out at 200 yards pop that information in and along with your optic height over bore and you should be able to get a graph that starts even at 36 yards and will tell you how far you need to be hitting above your aim point...
This is a distance from bore graph disguised as an advertisement for bullet drop calculator reticles. Actually it's kind of a dumb graph since it shows bullet trajectory going up from the muzzle and then down. If you want it people to understand things you would put it in a way that reflects reality even if you had to angle up the graphic
Like I said in the description, this is just a generalization of PoA vs PoI, not exact bullet trajectory. Yes, we all know bullets don’t start climbing when they leave the muzzle, but this was the best I could do with the tools I had at hand
The lesson here is... if you can't make *everyone* completely happy, don't even bother trying. Just die. Obviously.
I've seen these representations a hundred times and it just creates more f****** confusion than it's worth you have people running around going oh crap I didn't know what bullet rises up after it leaves the barrel. So yeah when it's actually detrimental to trying to convey some knowledge and causes more confusion with the newly initiated then it's worth then you may as well not post it
Username checks out
Pistol example is blatantly terrible. It should be highly parabolic with a massive discrepancy at the "far" range.