modern Rifle philosophy

>zero'd to 300

I'm going to puke

Barrel harmonics
When I'm in the zone, that rifle is singing. I trust in that rifle to strike the primer and start to put in a round. If it's all working and all of that is to spec it's up to the barrel.

>>33120855
at 300m the round is once again even with the barrel before it decreases further in its parabolic arc. happy?

File: arzeros.jpg (349KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 1600x1200px

>>33120937
>>33120827
your dumb

>>33121154
says the guy who can't spell

>>33121154
man info I'm given. I shoot 30-30 on a regular basis and I only get a c7 once a year to shoot 100m

File: 1477634020188.gif (40KB, 325x325px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 325x325px

>>33121225
see gif

>>33121241
It's cool man I get your point. It isn't bad way to zero as a mass standard. Our military does it the same way. In fact a lot of military's that have alliances do it for the reason that across armies ballistics will be known.

File: distainforplebs.jpg (26KB, 400x462px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x462px

>>33120827
>made to wound not kill

>>33121354
Im just interested in what other ideas are out there. If most militaries are doing it this way is it the best? Is there an effective counter or just alternative theories?

>>33121454
Our official philosophy is to wound combatants (this takes more resources for a standard military) sure they're still lethal just less so than say a 7.62 platform

>>33121461
It is just a standard of doctrine or TTP's(tactics,techniques,procedures). Here check this link out.

> https://robarguns.com/blog/2013/11/24/battle-sight-zero-bzo-who-has-it-right/

This picture>>33121154 explains some of the article with a picture.

It all really depends on your preference out of service, since your in service, you do what your told.
I have an A2 style carry handle on my rifle. I have it setup on the RIBZ style of zeroing I like it it is enjoyable to me do I recommend it for others, only if asked.

File: B8.jpg (163KB, 500x821px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 500x821px

>>33121354
>using the wrong word
>HAHA LOL I B8'D UUUUUUU

Every time.

File: 1486358987560.png (66KB, 810x800px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 810x800px

>>33121663

File: losing.jpg (109KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 650x650px

>>33121689

File: 1477622731242.png (5KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 225x225px

>>33121698
Thinking people care about grammar on a image board.

File: bruh.jpg (124KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1920x1080px

>>33121482

File: CO.jpg (25KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 600x375px

>>33121712
Thinking people will believe it was bait and not an intentional mistake.

File: 1476436776273.jpg (41KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 640x480px

>>33121745
lol k is easiest board to trigger

>>33121482
5.56 is used because intermediate cartridges were pivotal in the production of the Sturmgewehr and its ilk, which was fully intended to be used as a bullet hose at close range. In modern practice a carbine is not widely intended to be used at full Rifle range (DMRs are used for this) nor meant to be used as a bullet hose close range, so the use of an intermediary cartridge is really just an awkward artifact of Cold War battlefield philosophy. It does not -need- to be changed, but with advancements in gun design and ballistics technology I wouldn't be surprised to see military carbines tend towards lighter rounds with nicer ballistic performance out of shorter barrels.

In short, NO 5.56 is not "designed to wound". This is retarded fuddlore born out of a complete misrepresentation of military doctrine. If we were trying to wound with infantry instead of eradicate the enemy, we wouldn't have embraced the strategy of walking 5 feet and calling an airstrike all day everyday for the past 50 years.

File: 1476086298736.png (1MB, 1587x1600px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1587x1600px

>>33121758
i iz wetard wif no electricity

>>33121759
>shitting on airstrikes
But JDAMs are fun...

>>33121759

You, sir, are a sperglord tard.

Your stepdad should take your airsoft guns and put you on restriction.

>>33120827
>>33121454
>>33121482
>>33121759
>In short, NO 5.56 is not "designed to wound". This is retarded fuddlore born out of a complete misrepresentation of military doctrine.
Not only is it a misrepresentation, but 5.56 is every bit as lethal as 7.62x51 round for round inside of 200 meters. You only need a full-power cartridge for long range work, if you're shooting close in it's just not worth the extra weight and cost.
As far as the scout rifle you mentioned - it's not really applicable in a military context anymore since we have real DMRs, but for civilian use there's nothing at all wrong with it.

>>33121241
wtf are you talking about. you zero your c7 at 100m.

>>33121774
>>33121758
>>33121745
>>33121712
>>33121698
>>33121689
>>33121663
>>33121354
>>33121225
>>33121154
>>33120937
>>33120855

samefag

File: Finis_gloriae_mundi_from_Juan_Valdez_Leal.jpg (579KB, 1118x1133px) Image search: [Google]

579KB, 1118x1133px

>>33120827
>>33121454
>>33121482
>>33121759
I forget where I read this but It was a legitimate source. I thought it was on the 5.56 wiki page but couldn't find it.
Anyway, the 5.56 was technically not designed to do anything except be light weight and have high velocity.
They wanted a light weight round for obvious reasons and high velocity for good penetration and because higher velocity rounds are not affected by wind and drift as much (because of less time to target) and are therefore "easier" for soldiers to point and shoot.
The 5.56 was adopted before conclusive testing was done by whatever department was working on development because they "needed it now"! for Nam'.
So 5.56 was put into service before the testing was done and the conclusion was that something in the 6mm range would be ideal, but now it was too late.
The designed to wound meme was said by some military officer who basically was making shit up on the spot and it stuck.

>>33121991

>5.56 is every bit as lethal as 7.62x51 round for round inside of 200 meters.

Wow.

File: In_ictu_oculi.jpg (397KB, 1106x1124px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 1106x1124px

>>33122075
Here is why "designed to wound" is not even a good doctrine.
This idea was said to make the US sound more humane in its treatment of enemy combatants during a time when the US was being scrutinized for actions in Vietnam and anti-war peaceniks were demanding hippy shit or something.
But "taking X combatants out of combat by wounding 1 who will need treatment" being the reason for why an entire cartridge was put into service is seriously flawed.
The glaring issue is that you'll need to be up against an enemy force who "doesn't leave a man behind", has a conventional medical element, and puts a high value on rescuing and assisting their own wounded.
Believing that North Vietnamese and their guerilla warfare combatants would have their resources drained by tending to soldiers with small bullet wounds is ridiculous.
This would have been obvious to anyone who payed attention to what happened to the British in the Malaysian Emergency which hadn't ended too long ago.
The doctrine also wouldn't have worked against a conventional WW2 Soviet army which had no problem making unarmed men charge along with soldiers who had guns as well as shooting retreating soldiers.
Obviously the idea that we'll hurt Al-qaeda, ISIS, or any other terror force by draining their resources as they tend to a wounded soldier is utterly retarded.
The fact that Canada's military is apparently still believing this bullshit meme is utterly retarded and I've lost even more hope for Military Academia.
P.S. I have a relative who participated in the Curtis LeMay M16 testing.

>>33122045
No.
>>33121774 (You)
>>33121758 (You)
>>33121712 (You) me
>>33121698 (You)
>>33121689 (You)
>>33121354 (You)
>>33121154 (You)

I also dont give a fuck about your point of view.

>>33121972
>posts correct, well-reasoned information in a thread discussing ballistics on a board about discussion of weapons
>hurf durf ur a retard xD
kys ys
>>33121790
Wasn't shitting on airstrikes, just pointing out the obvious idiocy of the idea that we aren't slaughtering our opponents.

>>33121454
Going for deathfire touch instead of thunderlords decree...

>>33121991
>5.56 is every bit as lethal as 7.62x51 round for round inside of 200 meters.
This better be bait man.

>>33122115
>>33124051
It's true though. Fragmenting round versus overpenetrating round. 7.62x51 is certainly better further out because it can afford to lose more energy and doesn't have a fragmentation threshold, but close in all of its extra energy is getting wasted.

>made to wound not kill
That's a myth, with sufficient velocity 5.56 shrapnels inside the body like crazy.

>>33126590
But it's a partly true myth. Outside of the 5.56mm frag range it's a .22lr with a little omph behind it. Not that it can't kill a person but it's limited range.

>>33120827
>Canadian military
>zeroed to 300m
Except our elcans start at 400m

>>33127476
They start at 200, and zero at 100, and 25

>>33122168
vietcong and nva would even drag away their dead. one of the reason kill counts were so inaccurate was because they could never find any bodies, even if there was a blood trail.

>>33120827
wew 30 rounds. What about the 5 round pin you shitlord?