If I was overly generous with my example of accuracy and M193, forgive me. The crux of the article was not about how accurate or inaccurate M193 is, and if you wish substitute a reasonably accurate 55 grain bullet for the performance charicteristics of M193 cited in the article and related examples.Originally Posted by Molon
Not much.
From the article: “Typically M193 is considered a 1.5 to 2 MOA bullet. . .”
That statement alone, demonstrates his lack of knowledge/experience on the subject matter.
My evaluation of four different M193 loads (at the link below) shows that M193 loads only average approximately 3 MOA . . . and that evaluation was conducted using heavy barrels shot from a bench-rest; not standard barrels shooting from field positions.
Attack of the (M193) Clones
Also, his thinking is based on shooting at old-fashioned B-27 targets. That’s another indicator of his lack of knowledge/experience on the subject matter.
B-27 target . . .
How often does an armed criminal/enemy combatant who is intent on inflicting death or grave bodily harm on a law abiding citizen/law enforcement officer/soldier, stand out in the open, squarely facing you, with his hands at his side and holding perfectly still (which is what is depicted in a scenario with the unrealistic B27 targets) while allowing you to shoot at him and all the while not shooting back at you?
The Front Sight target pictured below is an “accurate representation of human dimensions taken from medical cadaver studies and 3000 x-ray studies.” This target represents a much more realistic aiming area that you would have available to shoot at on a criminal/enemy combatant who is shooting at you from behind cover. As you can see, the room for error on the part of the law abiding citizen/LEO/solder is far smaller with this target than that depicted in typical law enforcement/military training targets; particularly since our objective is not “just to hit the target,” but to make multiple center of upper thoracic cavity/central nervous systems hits (depicted by the “5” scoring zones on the target below).
..
The evaluation and study was best surmised as "what is best practice for hitting a target at an unkown distance, under duress of time and stress"?
The ultimate conclusion is that a accurate projectile fired from a barrel keeping said projectile relatively within 1 MOA and sighting in your setup where the smallest realistic target presentation you may encounter matches the maximum ordinate of your projectiles flight path will minimizes the need to hold over and would increase the probability of hitting your target.
No where is the article inclusive to the B27 other than wind deflection examples, and in fact in studying the methods of maximum point blank range and applying them to the smallest typical target zone "the head" would permit you to put the reticle on target and should give you the greatest probability of a hit since the bullet will remain aloft in the critical zone for the longest distance between the shooter and the end of your maximum point blank range.
While a 50 / 20-225 yard zero is certainly suitable for most shooting, my question remains what is pertinent and what is not in increasing the raw probability of hitting a target with a shooter who is under stress, is tired, and may utilize sloppy technique while firing at a target who presents for a short period of time? If the target presents itself for mere seconds, how accurately can a shooter range and shoot on a exposed head as such in your example? Instead why not maximize the distance in which our projectile remains in flight with a maximum rise no greater than the chosen target diameter? It would be a useful zero for exactly what your cadaver study supposes.
Which method would allow a higher probability of a CNS hit, a conventional zero based on 100 yard increments, or a zero that takes advantage of your specific rifle, specific ammunition type, velocity, and superimposes your useful zero and its bullet rise and fall on the maximum diameter of your chosen target? I believe the maximum point blank range method of zeroing is a useful tool, and you can always tighten the rise and fall of the trajectory by going up or down a few clicks on your turrets.
In the WEZ analysis software, it has been noted that vertical uncertainty is the largest degree of influence on a shooter missing a target in a low confidence scenario, and that accurate range estimation is essential to hitting said target. While the following well written article discusses the effects of shooter error, range estimation, and atmospherics at a target pushing 900 yards, you can surmise that the a shooter in a shorter range scenario would have a higher probability of hitting the target if he /she uses match ammo with a high of a BC as achievable out of the platform, an accurate rifle to shoot it with, and a zero which eliminates *as much as possible* the need to hold over a target which presents at an unknown range. Every defensive target we encounter will be at an unknown range. The question then becomes, have I zeroed my rifle in such a manner as to give me the greatest probability of intersecting that targets critical zone with minimal need to hold over? If yes fire. Minimizing the need to hold over with say a 100 yard zero and or hold under with something along the lines of a 300 yard zero is something we should seek to avoid. It's effectively error compensation in a situation where you shouldn't have to add more solutions to the problem. If we take this at a more micro level of where you may be shooting at a partially exposed head, a exposed rifle, a leg, etc. inside of 300 yards, I believe that *reducing* the need to hold over by increasing your trajectory's effective target envelop will give you a greater probability of hitting the target, be it your cadaver scenario or a fully exposed silhouette.
http://www.nvisti.com/wp-content/upl...C14.02-WEZ.pdf
Each and every thing we add or subtract to our rifle ultimately increases or decreases our odds of hitting the target. A zero which increases our chances of hitting a fleeting target where the shooters need to adjust the shot is minimized is also a part of that equation. Quality ammo with a high BC adds another few percentage points with its ability to reduce wind drift and increased accuracy. All this stemmed from a relative who saw combat in Afghanistan, and went through DMR school yet, he told me how incredibly frustrated he became when targets would appear for seconds and then disappear before he could make use of any of that training or marksmanship theory. His M14 DMR was nothing special in these scenarios, he couldn't range or spin turrets fast enough before the threat would disappear. That was the impetus for my study (and continued study) of civilian marksmanship. The more and more I study this... the more I see what others have developed in regards to the "moneyball" of shot analysis, especially Brian Litz, the more it becomes apparent that hitting a target is a big game of percentage points... once you have done your part to flash that target with your crosshair or reticle, and you pulled that sloppy shot, it's all up to probability, the bullet, and its relationship in the environment as to whether it's a near miss or a hit.
Ultimately, does a maximum point blank range zero scheme add any help to the shooter at hitting a target at an unknown distance? is it 1% 5% 10% Who knows? The question is if it did give you a few points extra in hit probability, who wouldn't take it? We zero based on square ranges and 100 yard increments, yet our target will always present at an unknown range.
and no hard feelings to Molon, he has done much for our community, and I may disagree with him here and later on, but this will never resort to name calling. We play for the same team even if we don't subscribe to each others newsletter if you get my drift.
P.S. everyone. I know the furthest typical defensive distance we are likely to engage is 25 yards and under. That's not going to stop me from passing on short and long range shooting to my children. It would be negligent of me to suppose that society and our current "scenarios" and common knowledge will always be the ones that we are likely to encounter. The veil of society is thin, and easily shred...
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks