The backlog of Russian rifle scopes

Due to a number of errors, the riflescopes for Kalashnikov’s machine guns and machine guns that the Ministry of Defense of Russia is purchasing are making it impossible for the shooter to fire a duel - aimed shooting at the head target, and also have a low probability of hitting other targets.

An updated version of the article, which was published in the "Bulletin of the Academy of Military Sciences" №4 for 2013 year.

Some shooting errors are determined by the sight design. Of such errors, the following effects have the greatest impact on the shooting results:
• range error;
• error targeting;
• rounding the installation of the sight.

When shooting with an open mechanical sight and a visual method for determining the distance to the target, errors in determining the range and pickup [1, p. 129] dominate among shooting errors in height. For example, when shooting an AKM machine gun at a distance of 500, these errors are:

Median Shooting Altitude Errors Meters (% of total error)
0,7 ÷ 1,11м range definitions (56,6 ÷ 63,5%)
0,5 ÷ 0,75м leads (28,9 ÷ 29,0%)
Rounding of the 0,17 m sight mount (3,4 ÷ 1,5%)

FIG. 1. Excerpt from the 6 table [1, page 130].

The error in determining the distance leads to the fact that the shooter sets the wrong sight and thus shifts the average hit point (STP) up or down from the aiming point - the center of the target. 0,7m from the center even of a growth figure means that the STP and the center of dispersion of the queues are shifted to the contour of the target. And 1,11m means that they are taken out of the contours of even such a high goal. The pickup error increases the dispersion of single shots and STP queues.

Obviously, with those indicated in FIG. 1 values ​​of shooting errors, the probability of hitting the target is small. The column “% total error” shows that, under these firing conditions, range determination and pickup errors dominate the total error and amount to 92,5% (!) Of the total shooting error.

If the range is determined using even the simplest rangefinder optical sight scale, with which help is made weaponsthen the errors of determining the range and aiming are much smaller and even cease to be dominant in the total error of shooting [1, p. 129].

That is, the optical sight multiplies the deviation of the STP and the center of dispersion of the queues from the center of the target, therefore, dramatically increases the probability of hitting. Therefore, in recent years, many armies in the world have been actively completing with optical sights not only sniper rifles, but also automatic small arms. And there is no alternative to this process.

But optical sights have different designs, and the errors of determining the range, pickup and rounding of the installation of the sight for each design their own. Therefore, in itself, the complete set of Russian automatic small arms with optical sights does not guarantee that the probability of hitting our weapons will reach the level reached by the likely adversary. It is necessary that our new riflescopes have no greater values ​​for shooting errors than the best world samples.

In this article, the Russian sights are compared with the most innovative of the passive optical sights - with the ACOG (Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight) series from the American company Trijicon, which are coming into service with the US Army. For an adequate assessment of our sights, we first evaluate ACOG.

ACOG - Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight

“The width of horizontal scratches on the line of falling of a bullet in ACOG corresponds to the average width of the male shoulders (19 inches) at this range” - Operator's Manual [2, p. 19, hereinafter translated by the author]. The width of the square is equal to the width of the shoulders at a distance 300м.

FIG. 2. Aiming scheme with ACOG, Operator's Manual [2, page 18].

That is, in these sights, a new method of measuring the distance to the target has been applied: the range is determined not by the angular height, but by the angular width of the target. From the shooter it is only necessary to choose that horizontal risk, the width of which is equal to the width of the arms of the target. And measuring the distance and setting the angle of aiming - in one action! Extremely fast, simple and intuitive, even to a non-professional.

Note the following:
• By the angular width, you can accurately measure the distance to a “man” target of any height - height, waist, chest, head with shoulders (target # 5 from our shooting range [3]), as well as any intermediate height between them, because the vertical size of the target does not matter.
• Although Operator's Manual [2] does not state this explicitly, ACOG makes it easy to measure the distance and aim at the head when the shoulders are not visible. After all, the width of the head is 23cm, which is almost half the width of the shoulders 50cm [3, targets №№ 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. Therefore, it is possible to measure the distance to the head by half the horizontal risks. For example, at 400 range, distance measurement and aiming will look like this:

FIG. 3. Measuring range and aiming with ACOG in the head target. Scheme of the author.

• ACOG allows you to abandon the direct shot and shoot accurately. After all, with a direct shot, the STP “walks” from the lower edge of the target to the top and therefore the probability of hitting the range of the direct shot and the range of the top of the trajectory cannot be greater than 0,5. And shooting with precise aiming gives the maximum chance of hitting. However, ACOG allows you to shoot a direct shot: without picking up the exact crosshairs, you can always direct the crosshairs of the direct shot range to the lower edge of the target; for example, the 6 crosshair is always at the bottom edge of the growth target.

Thus, ACOG shooters even with M-16 / M-4 allow extremely quickly and with a high probability of falling into any, including the main target - the most frequent and most dangerous target on the battlefield. An ACOG shooter at ranges to 600 can fire a duel even more effectively than a sniper armed with an optical sight like our PSO-1. Because ACOG allows you to quickly measure the distance.

Sights of our manufacturers

"Novosibirsk Instrument-Making Plant" (refinery, recently renamed "Shvabe protection and security") - "the main supplier of day and night sights for all types of small arms of the Russian Army" [4, "Specialty" page] - still measures the angular range target height.

Error measuring the distance at the target height

Measuring the range of 1PN93-2 AK-74 with the production of refineries:

FIG. 4. [5, page 51].

As you can see, the specialized scale measures the distance only to the growth target, in this sight - height 1,5м. And to determine the distance to all other targets in accordance with the 2.7 section of the Guide [5, page 20-21]:

1. The shooter must know the height of the targets.

But this is possible only for standard targets, whose dimensions are unchanged. You can even measure the range on the scale of the growth target to the standard chest and head targets: since the chest is 3 times and the head one 5 times lower than 1,5, the range measured by the growth scale should be reduced by 3 and 5 times, respectively. That is, when shooting at the landfill, the method of measuring the distance from the target height can still be applied.

And in combat, the targets have an arbitrary height, often between the heights of standard targets, and therefore measurements by their angular height give a very large error. For example, if the target height 0,4m count the head, then the measured distance will be 1 / 3 less than the real range. And if the same goal is calculated chest, then the measured range will be on 1 / 5 more than the real range.

And for a growth target, if it goes on high grass, deep snow or over uneven terrain, the measured distance may have an error to the real range 1 / 3 ÷ 1 / 4.

2. The shooter must firmly know the following dimensions of the reticle:

FIG. 5. [5, page 40].

3. The shooter must determine the angular value of the target on the sighting grid in the thousandth range.

4. The shooter must calculate the distance to the target by the formula:

D = B * 1000 / Y

where D is the distance to the target,
B - target height,
Y is the angular height of the target in thousandths.

5. And only now the shooter must choose the aiming mark, which must be aimed at the target.

Especially note:
• The above method for determining the distance from the angular height of a target is a classic method used in almost all our rangefinder scales for small arms.
• Obviously, the classical method is more laborious, and therefore slower and less accurate than the method used in ACOG to determine the distance from the angular width of the target.
• Yes, the classical method is universal - it allows you to measure the range not only to a person, but to any object of a known height - a building, tank, BMP, telegraph pole, etc. But why is it for a machine gunner or machine gunner who does not hit buildings, tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and telegraph poles?
• The universal classical method loses to the specialized ACOG method precisely in what the machine gun or light machine gun was created for — in defeating enemy personnel.

New Russian optical sights do not allow to effectively hit the head target

“When firing a machine gun at a distance of 400 (direct shot), fire should be fired at the upper aiming mark, aiming at the lower edge of the target or at the middle if the target is high (running figures, etc.)” [5, article 2.8.2, p .21]:

FIG. 6. Excerpt from figure A.13 - [5, p.49].

That is, up to 400, you can only shoot a direct shot with such a gun at a low target, there is no other way.

Designers 1PN93-2 AK-74 laid in this optical, having a good multiplicity (4x), only one sight (!) Way of shooting at low targets - the one that 40 years ago was recommended for AK-74 sector (mechanical) sight:

FIG. 7. Excerpt from Art.155 Guides on AK-74 [6, Art.155].

But aiming at the bottom edge of the target with an 4 sight is a direct shot at the pectoral target. And to the head target, such a shot at ranges from 150 to 300 gives the probability of hitting 4 10 times worse than choosing the exact crosshairs in ACOG. This is shown in the article. "The machine gunner should and can hit the head figure." "Military Review" in fig. 6.

At the head target, a direct shot must be fired, not with an 4 or R sight, but with an 3 sight (300). And the sector (mechanical) AK sight allowed the machine gunner not to shoot with the 4 sight, but to mount the 3 sight and to conduct an equal duel with the M-16 / M-4 mechanical sight. But the 1PN93-2 AK-74 sight completely deprives our gunner of this opportunity!

When discussing the above article “The submachine gunner should and can hit the head figure” on the Military Review portal, some commentators blamed me for not raising this issue, they say, in battle, the requirement of article 155 of the AK-74 Guide can be ignored and not fired with sights "4" or "P", and with a sight "3". But the new sights of the refinery, as we see, the label "3" is simply not.

In this situation, the separation of the enemy with all its M-16 with ACOG in the very first seconds of the fire duel destroys the sniper of our branch. And the rest of our department turns into a target in the dash.

Our submachine gunners and machine gunners must also beat their head targets! And for this, in the 1PN93-2 AK-74, it was enough to provide at least one more tag - 350м (approximate direct shot at the head target) or at least 300m, as on the sector "mechanical" sight.

From the Shooting Course [3, shooting exercises] it is obvious that the optics on the sniper rifle can effectively beat the head target. So, the optics will allow it on the machine gun and Kalashnikov machine gun. Why do they make optical sights for them, which make it impossible to conduct an effective fire on the head target - it is impossible to explain.

And these 1PN93-2 AK-74 our Ministry of Defense purchases thousands of pieces of 3,5 (!) - [interview of Deputy Director General of the Refinery Yury Abramov on the sidelines of a meeting of the Scientific and Technical Council of the Military Industrial Commission under the Government of Russia, December 2011 g].

A year and a half ago, the Ministry of Defense seemed to have admitted the mistake of these sights:

FIG. 8.

But so far on the site of the Novosibirsk Instrument-Making Plant, the 1PN93-2 AK-74 and several other optical sights for automatic rifles and Kalashnikov machine guns have this feature - the target range and range for measuring the range start with 400m. These are 1P77, 1P78-1, 1P78-2, 1P78-3 day sights. For the 100-series sights, information about the target range is simply not indicated on the refinery website, and it is possible that they are the same - suitable only for the thoracic target (“thoracic” sights).

It's been a year and a half, and you can forget the instructions? Bullets began to fly differently, or what?

Sights in which there are no aim marks less than 400, do not allow to conduct a firing duel even in the case when the distance to the target is known. And if the range is required to be measured, then in the fire duel, ACOG simply does not leave any chance for our shooter with these sights.

For effective shooting at the head target, “thoracic” sights of the refinery should not be brought to normal combat. It is more expedient to bring the "4" mark of these scopes to the range 350m - the range of the direct shot at the head target. For the AK-74, this means that at the 100 range, the “4” mark for the STP above the aiming point should be 19 centimeters. Then, with the “4” tag to the 350 range, you can hit any low target, including the head one, with a single or two rounds on the 3 cartridge.

I emphasize that this method of correcting the “chest” optical sight is good because it does not require retraining of machine gunners. All the skills that have been developed from machine gunners in accordance with Art. 155 AK-74 manuals, remain: aim a low target at the bottom edge, and a running one - at the middle (Fig. 7).

Of course, when casting the “4” tag to the 350 range, the remaining sighting marks will not match their ranges either. But it is better to hit any target up to the range of 350m, and to the running one - up to 450m-500m, than at ranges from 150m to 300m not to get into the main target, which fires at you.

But even better, of course, stop releasing "chest" sights.

Double rounding-off error

In addition to the already mentioned deficiencies in 1PN93-2 AK-74, the distance scale step is twice the usual one - 200м instead of the usual 100м. This means that the rounding-off error of the sight was also doubled.

The distance step 100m led to the emergence of the STP beyond the contours of the growth target, starting with 650m. This was acceptable, because beyond 600m - the range of a direct shot at the growth target - we practically and do not shoot with a machine gun. As we have seen, the Americans in ACOG for the M-16 range pitch remained 100, and the target range remained 600 [Fig. 2].

Fig.9.

And the distance step 200м leads to the exit of the STP beyond the contours of the growth target already starting with 500m. After all, the excess of the 6 sight at a distance of 500 is greater than 0,75 - half the height of the growth figure - [6, table “Excessive trajectories over the aiming line”]. That is, zones with a meager probability of hitting even the highest target of 1PN93-2 AK-74 begin with 500m. A "just" reduction in the probability of hitting occurs even closer to 500, because the rounding error is doubled at all distances.

Therefore, shooting with an 1PN93-2 AK-74 sight even for a growth target is only advisable up to 400m. Shooting on 400m is useless and dangerous: you are unlikely to get in, but you will find yourself and put yourself under fire. And this applies to all sights where the range pitch is 200.

Summing up the assessment of 1PN93-2 AK-74, we can say that its developers made all possible errors that could be made to reduce the likelihood of hitting this sight even compared to the "old man" PSO-1.

The negligence of our manufacturers sights in the documentation

Note that in the figure from the Operating Instructions for the 1PN93-2 sight [Fig. 5] The distances between the 4, 6, 8 and 10 sighting marks are the same. This is mistake! In the explanatory captions in Figure A.4, these distances are indicated correctly, based on AK-74 ballistics: from “4” to “6” - 2,8 thousand, to “8” - 7,6 thousand, to “10” - 14,6 thousand. But the drawing itself does not correspond to these explanations! The distances between adjacent labels must be different:
from “4” to “6” - 2,8 thousand;
from "6" to "8" - 4,8 thousand. (7,6 thousand. - 2,8 thousand.);
from "8" to "10" - 7 thousand. (14,6 thousand. - 7,6 thousand.).

That is, the rangefinder scale “wound up” into the telescopic sight should “stretch” with increasing range. As seen in FIG. 2 from the ACOG documentation.

Our Defense Ministry assured me that in the 1PN93-2 AK-74 "live" sights, the rangefinder scale was "stretched", as it should be. But the shooter, still studying the guide to the sight, should get used to the aiming grid, which he sees in the sight. And getting a real sight, the shooter should not suspect that he slipped marriage.

Weapons should be different accuracy of the wording and schemes in the documentation, and such "blunders" of our manufacturers reduce the credibility of our weapons.

Final conclusions

Russian rifle scopes for machine guns and Kalashnikov machine guns, including those that received the GRAU index, passed state tests and were procured by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, have a number of drawbacks that increase shooting errors.

Due to constructive errors, Russian sights have a significantly lower probability of hitting the target and a more complex and lengthy process of aiming than their direct competitors - ACOG sights.

But copying ACOG is not advisable: in Russia, a passive sight was invented and patented, one step ahead of ACOG. It is necessary to begin development work on this new sight.

References
[1] "The effectiveness of firing from automatic weapons", Shereshevsky, MS, Gontarev, AN, Minaev, Yu.V., Moscow, Central Research Institute of Information, 1979,
[2] "Operator's Manual: Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight" Model: 3x30 ▼ TA33-8, ▼ TA33R-8, ▼ TA33-9, TA33R-9, www.trijicon-XNUMX, TAXNUMXR-XNUMX ▼
[3] “The rate of shooting from small arms, combat vehicles and tanks of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (2003), was commissioned by the order of the Commander-in-Chief of the Land Forces - Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation from 01 July 2003 g No.108.
[4] www.npzopt.ru - the official site of OAO "PO" Oil Refinery ".
[5] “Product 1PN93-2. Instruction Manual, 44 7345 41, approved by ALZ.812.222 RE-LU.
[6] “The 5,45-mm Kalashnikov assault rifle (AK74, AX74, AK74H, AX74H) and 5,45-mm Kalashnikov machine gun (RPK74, RPXXNNXX, RPK74H, RPXXXUM, RPX74H, PCXX74, RPXXNNXX, RPX1982H, PCXXXNUMX, RPXXNNXX, AKXNUMXH, RPXXNUMX, RPXXNNXX, RPKXNUMXH, RPXXXNUMX, AKXNUMXH) XNUMX

Comments

[Tanarri]

Thanks for your research. Perhaps it would be possible to quickly reduce this backlog in the sights if we collect signatures from people who understand this and bring to the attention of the plant and defense mines.

[Svateev]

Tanarri! Why do you have the US flag?

[fyvaprold]

Quote: Svateev

Tanarri! Why do you have the US flag?

From under the proxy server, apparently, sitting. Spy mania?

[Tanarri]

Because I live in the USA =)

[mirag2]

You are doing a holy thing !!!!!!!!!!!!!! - this is to the author of the article.

[ver_]

Why even post this article? ...

[Victor-M]

Quote: ver_

Why even post this article? ...

And what articles to post on the "Military Review", tips for hair care?

[patsantre]

No, he likes to read only about how our times were all *** and that our technology has no analogues in the world. He does not like the truth.

[Free Island]

Quote: Victor-M

hair care tips?

yeah, for the trophy ... of the "Correct removal and processing of the scalp from an American soldier for the manufacture of trophy exhibits"!)))

[Svateev]

Quote: ver_

Why even post this article? ...

I have been proving to the Ministry of Defense and the plant these shortcomings for a year and a half. Woz and now there. Therefore, unveiling is the only remaining way.

[IIIIvanov]

Dear VA!
And what is this passive sight, and where can I read about it?
Best regards,
AND.

[Svateev]

This is so far only for military research institutes and for manufacturers of sights. If you are one of those, please contact me.[email protected]"

[IIIIvanov]

Thank. Unfortunately I do not belong. Just curious on this subject.
Best regards,
AND.

[Per se.]

Quote: Svateev

I have been proving to the Ministry of Defense and the plant these shortcomings for a year and a half. Woz and now there.

It is necessary to talk about this, especially since this is a topic directly related to our weapons. It is sad that when reading your lines, dear Viktor Alekseevich, I involuntarily recall the lines from Nikolai Leskov's "The Tale of the Tula Scythe Lefty and the Steel Flea":

“Tell the Sovereign that the British do not clean their guns with brick: let them not clean them with us, otherwise God save the war and they will not be able to shoot,” Levsha distinctly said, crossed himself and died.

Unlike the myth about the brick, the topic of scopes is real, but, apparently, Leskov was not ironic in vain ... Hopefully, the problem will be solved, like the Russian "passive sight, one step ahead of the ACOG", which you are talking about, will come to our army.

[mirag2]

Awesomely correct article, I immediately remembered how an article appeared a year ago where it said "... that if the bullets are not flying heap, then this is good," dispersion "will help the target to hit, in fact without aiming ..." - such nonsense! "diffusion..."
The shooter must hit the target, and not shoot into the white light - "scattering" bullets.

[jjj]

The machine gun must precisely scatter in order to increase the affected area. An assault rifle is not a sniper rifle. It is designed for close-range burst combat. And our "Western colleagues" are trying to forcefully impose the "Theory of one shot" on us. If we follow this path, then we will regret it later

[Svateev]

Quote: jjj

disperse to enlarge the affected area

By increasing the "affected area", or rather the area of ​​dispersion, we reduce the density of fire (the number of bullets per unit area) and thereby reduce the probability of hitting (and the probability of being hit). To compensate for the decrease in the density of fire, it is necessary to increase the length of the queue.
Moreover, with an increase in the mean deviation of scattering "B" by 2 times, the scattering area will increase by 2 * Pi * (2 * B) square / 2 * Pi * (B) square = (2) square = 4 times. Therefore, in order to maintain the same density of fire and the length of the queue, it is necessary to increase 4 times. If we increase the dispersion by 3 times, then the length of the queue should be increased by 9 times. It is pointless to count further, because an increase in dispersion by 3 times already means that instead of a short burst of 3 rounds, it is necessary to land 9 times more, that is, the entire store! And a 3 times increase in dispersion will give you a lot, if you don't want to aim at all and want to shoot at white light like a penny ?!

Quote: jjj

And our "Western colleagues" are trying to forcefully impose the "Theory of one shot" on us.

And here you are right. You cannot completely abandon the queue. I'm not talking about a fleeting point-blank fight, where the queue is simply irreplaceable. But even with accurate shooting at medium ranges (and even more so - further), even the current dispersion of shots already has to be compensated for by a burst so that the probability of hitting is acceptable. And this is for a fixed target. A moving target can be really "covered" only with a burst despite the use of laser rangefinders, target speed meters, wind sensors, etc.
Therefore, the theory of "one shot" must really be perceived as the theory of "one shot". It is significant that on the website of the Trijicon company (it also produces the ACOG sight discussed in the article) a new sight with a laser rangefinder is offered primarily for a machine gun.

[jjj]

In fact, we are talking about the same thing. Only I mean a fleeting close-range fight without a prepared cover. But not in a confined space - here a submachine gun is more practical, but at a distance of 50-300 meters. In such a situation, it is not always, or rather almost never, it will be possible to aim "according to all the rules", determining the distance, holding the breath. The tongue may already be "on the shoulder", sweat flowing down the face and hands trembling. Yes, the line may be longer, but not a whole magazine, but 5-7 rounds. A long queue is generally something beyond the bounds. Moreover, the skill of offhand shooting comes quickly enough with daily training. Everything happens on the subconscious.
But from the Comfrey, when there is nowhere to rush, a line of two cartridges is sufficient. Well, if the trunk is the first groove. In AK-74, in any case in the first issues, unlike AKM, the second bullet can hit the target.
In general, of course, a sniper rifle can do this better. Therefore, a first-line sniper is a must in every squad.
That is why, from a practical point of view, I believe that the machine should disperse in the queue precisely in order to increase the probability of hitting the target. A rifle to make an accurate shot at a longer distance. Of course, I could be wrong. It’s just my practical experience.

[Svateev]

Quote: jjj

the machine should disperse in line precisely in order to increase the probability of hitting a target

I almost agree with that. Small clarification:

The shooter himself can consciously disperse the queue if necessary. In the AK-74 manual, several articles are devoted to dispersing a line along the front of a wide target (an attacking infantry group, for example). In practice, dispersion is also recommended when shooting at a moving target, when we take a lead, at the beginning of the queue, we stop moving the barrel after the target and the target runs into the queue. No one prohibits deliberately scattering (during a turn to move the aiming point in the target area) and when firing offhand, at a target disguised "somewhere here", in doubt that he has aimed correctly, etc.

But if we make an automatic machine that itself, regardless of the desire of the shooter, strongly dissipates, then it can’t reduce such involuntary dispersion of arrows. And then when shooting, starting from medium-range shooters just does not hit the target - the bullets scatter around the target and nothing can be done about it.

Therefore, LESS (INVOLUNTARY) SCATTERING IS ALWAYS GOOD. IF NEEDED ARROWS CONSCIOUSLY SCATTER THE SHOTS.

[Tanarri]

Well, I would just like to add that while in the Russian Federation the conscription army en masse to trust soldiers with expensive and demanding "tools", the authorities are most likely afraid. Especially now, when the service life has been reduced so much that there is no longer any further. They probably don't have time to teach them properly.

[ty60]

Not at all. When firing bursts of 3 to five rounds, the dispersion will be as a result of the automatic reloading, recoil, etc. It makes sense only with a high density of enemy battle formations. See the Chapaev-Kappelevtsev film in close formation. phalanx? Not seriously.

[Svateev]

Quote: ty60

It makes sense only with a high density of enemy battle formations

If this is you about the advisability of deliberately dispersing shots along the front, then that is not entirely true. Even in open order it makes sense to disperse, if the density of fire is 2 bullets per linear meter of the front, it will at least hurt everyone who falls under such dispersion. This is how EMNIP recommends the AK-74 Manual.
If you are attacked by an 100-3 person with an open throw (5-3 meters interval) with an 5 throw, then, apparently, it makes sense to spend the store to cover the 15 of their front with a queue. You just hurt three and spend only 3 seconds on it.

[Svateev]

Quote: ty60

It makes sense only with a high density of enemy battle formations

If this is you about the advisability of deliberately dispersing shots along the front, then that is not entirely true. Even in open order it makes sense to disperse, if the density of fire is 2 bullets per linear meter of the front, it will at least hurt everyone who falls under such dispersion. This is how EMNIP recommends the AK-74 Manual.
If you are attacked by an 100-3 person with an open throw (5-3 meters interval) with an 5 throw, then, apparently, it makes sense to spend the store to cover the 15 of their front with a queue. You just hurt three and spend only 3 seconds on it.

[yehat]

as I understand it, the theory of a short burst of 2-4 rounds at medium range is now fashionable

[Svateev]

Quote: yehat

2-4 cartridge queues

Of the AK-74, the most effective line-up is the 3 cartridge (if you aim accurately). Because AK-74 has the following feature of dispersing bullets in a queue:
1-I bullet, naturally, gets to where it was aimed;
The 2 bullet hits the left shoulder of the target even at 100 range; at great distances, it goes even higher and to the left of the head (from the target);
3-th bullet gets very close to the first pool;
all subsequent bullets in the line are randomly and very scattered around the target area.
That is, when shooting bursts at 3 shots, we get 67% of bullets (every first and third); bursts of 2 shots - 50% of bullets (only every first); the 30 round of cartridges gives 5-6 hits (including the first and third), that is, all 17-20% of bullets. This is for a thoracic motionless target at a range of 100m. Checked personally.

[Simon]

And, suddenly, for wanting to shoot, at least from a slingshot, you will set your sights and you will hit for sure. How much joy there will be when you get there.

[Barmal]

Wenceslas pours water into a kettle



Actually, to whom to entrust a weapon? Hazing bring out who will align minds that can only think with the right mouse button?

[k1995]

He served from 93 to 95 in the Taman division, we did not have snipers, but all the servicemen were introduced to the SVD and night optics. They taught to shoot according to the same principle as with mechanics, they didn’t tell at all that they could measure distances using the reticle, it wasn’t necessary at the shooting range, but how was it in the field ?. I hope now the situation is different, even on lagging sights.
PS They fought for mistakes as trained, so sometimes they preferred to shoot without optics, it turned out better.

[jjj]

Once I had a chance to shoot from a D-30, however, sub-caliber ones. I saw the sight for the first time in my life. The target designation was given by the lieutenant colonel. He told in plain language what scale to use, where to aim. I "knocked out" the tank with the first shot. The second "took down the tower". Distance 500 meters. The lieutenant colonel said that I can safely be a gunner

[ty60]

I didn’t shoot from D30. From 2s3, I took off my hat from 54 when I got into the lure. In range about 43 years old

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: k1995

so sometimes they preferred to shoot without optics, it worked better.

This is the film, in which the secret agent poured vodka into the telescope, stating that you can see it better?

[yehat]

long-range shooting still requires a habit.
If you use an assault rifle, abruptly changing it to SVD and becoming a well-aimed shooter right away (to become a sniper, a rifle is not enough) will fail.
A sniper with shooting at 300 meters (the recommended maximum range for firing on SVD for reliable destruction) is somehow not quite normal.

[ale-x]

And what will the small arms exploitation engineers say?

[Svateev]

Quote: ale-x

firearms engineers

Who do you mean?
The views of specialized research institutes can be found in the article "Freaks in military uniform" on the same site (how to insert a hyperlink ?!). There are very interesting opinions from practitioners in the discussion of that article.

[ale-x]

I am practitioners and I mean. Somehow one acquaintance of acquaintances with an interesting track record joked. To my question about his education, he replied that he was an engineer, then added small arms.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: ale-x

He replied that he was an engineer, then added small arms.

And what? There is, an engineer of human souls ,,!

[ramzes1776]

This is due to the fact that in NII-3 and in GRAU there are a lot of thieves losers who can only cut budget loot and receive kickbacks !!!

[Cormorants]

The little article came out against the backdrop of the success of our firms in the western market. TROLES!

[Svateev]

Quote: Cormorants

against the backdrop of the success of our firms in the western market

Some refinery sights in the western market really began to be sold. But these are hunting sights, where ballistics does not play a role. But what are our army sights sold in the West? The only classic PSO-1 that you have to work with in five steps, as indicated in the article.
ACOG is faster and easier than a classic sight. And it has been produced for a dozen years. And our plants and the Ministry of Defense are sleeping.

[Alexey N]

Something all we have is WRONG recently. And the right one beyond the hill is 5-10 times more expensive. Plus rollback. Serdyukovsky chip is booming.
However, as an amateur, I note that a vertical grid would not hurt our optics. It is not difficult to draw a vertical strip, but there are many benefits from it.

[Svateev]

Quote: Alexey N

It’s not difficult to draw a vertical strip

The vertical strip in ACOG is just not important, it is an auxiliary element, which, in principle, can be dispensed with. The meaning of ACOG is in horizontal risks: their width and the aiming angle at which each of these patterns is applied.

Quote: Alexey N

Serdyukovsky chip is booming.

You are categorically wrong! Serdyukov said "ours is bad, therefore we will buy over the hill." And I say "it appeared better than over the hill. Let's do it!"

[Alexey N]

And I say "it appeared better than over the hill. Let's do it!"

I support. And about Serdyukov- boiling. Tired of Western adoration. But if for "not cleaning with a brick", then you can take over.

The vertical strip in ACOG is just not important, it is an auxiliary element, which, in principle, can be dispensed with. The meaning of ACOG is in horizontal risks: their width and the aiming angle at which each of these patterns is applied.

But copying ACOG is not advisable: in Russia, a passive sight was invented and patented, one step ahead of ACOG. It is necessary to begin development work on this new sight.

With two hands behind.
I would finish the "parabola" with a vertical scale from Mildot. But that's how they say IHMO
I repeat, I'm not special.
In my opinion, "ACOG" is more practical than "classics" and if we proceed from the principle "why does a collective farmer need a piano", then it may well replace it. But. Accuracy may be higher, but not by much. But the loss of the versatility of the sight is obvious. I suspect that there will be problems when installing on a different caliber or when changing a cartridge.
By the way, no one is stopping our manufacturers from combining these meshes or making their own based on the classic "parabola".

[Svateev]

Quote: Alexey N

make your own based on the classic "parabola".

Interesting. Can I learn more?

[Alexey N]

Unfortunately I can not post a picture. I'll try another time.

[Svateev]

Quote: Alexey N

I can not post a picture

You can send me to @[email protected]@

[ty60]

You will teach many unicellulars during the year of service to confidently shoot only at the usual shooting range. Departure to another training ground is a complete ass. Parabol is needed only by a contract soldier for many summers. And then when time allows you to apply. In transient conflicts for a different level of training, the simpler the better .

[Alexey N]

during one year of service, you teach many unicellulars to confidently shoot only at the usual shooting range

This is a problem of the family, school, military registration and enlistment offices, training methods, commanders and the state as a whole, but not precisely the reticle. Non-trainees are another conversation. Another topic. But simplicity also has limits.

[okunevich_rv]

The purchase of sights that deliberately put a fighter in a fired state means he lost, this is no longer negligence, this is sabotage. From knowledgeable in this topic, it is necessary to apply to the gene. the prosecutor's office on conducting an audit of the misuse of funds and possible abuse of officials.

[Svateev]

Quote: okunevich_rv

apply to the gene. prosecutor's office

The answer of the Deputy Minister of Defense, which is posted in the article, he actually did not give me personally, but to the request of the Committee on Defense of the State Duma, which I had to turn to after the dismissal from the Ministry of Defense.
But I have not yet applied to the Prosecutor General's Office. But, there are few prospects: you have to prove the intentionality of the actions. And is there an article "sabotage" in our Criminal Procedure Code?

[dik-fort]

The likelihood of an answer essentially from the Prosecutor General's Office tends to zero, they will unsubscribe in general terms at best. Unfortunately, the only effective way to achieve results is to break through to the "powerful" or to the "king". Try to turn to Rogozin, after all, Deputy Prime Minister, and be sure to post scans of answers, people should know their "heroes".

[leonardo_1971]

we received sniper rifles of the Ministry of Internal Affairs SV-98 rifles with Belarusian sights, which after several shots fell the mark. As a result, a good rifle was idle. I had to work with SVD or BCC until I saved up my money bought on Lupold. Yes, Hyperon came costing about 140 thousand rubles. my purchase of optics cost me 50 thousand, so our sights are either Mr. or unreasonably expensive. boats and optics for small arms is visible for the factory too difficult. sorry. it's boiling.

[Svateev]

Quote: leonardo_1971

Why buy Hyperon when you can buy 3 Lupold.

The price of Hyperon is, of course, a big question. But in theory "Hyperon" should be faster and more accurate than "Lewpold". If it is made with high quality and nothing falls off, like a Belarusian ("BelOMO"?).

[Earnest]

What does the trolls have to do with it? I support the author, because, being a platoon / zakkomrot / company / zakombat himself, he demanded to "re-fire" the AK in a quiet manner precisely at the sight 3. Before that I thought of without such calculations as the author's, but only with practical exercises, the chief of the crew, ensign Nikishov V.A. ., who later grew up to the castle and quit his job. By the way, over the years, the continuity was lost, some were disbanded and that's it, again everyone is shooting at the chest and "P"

[Svateev]

Quote: Earnest

Before that, I thought of without such calculations as the author, but only with practical exercises, the chief of the calculation, ensign V. Nikishov

You are absolutely right! To understand that you need to shoot at the head target with a direct shot from a scope smaller than "4", it is not necessary to know all the ballistics and Laplace tables. Common sense is enough. After all, we do not shoot with a sight "6" with a direct shot at the chest target! So it is here: lower target - less crosshair.

The main thing is to WANT TO FIND A WAY TO GET AN ENEMY IN ORDER TO COLLECT YOUR GUYS.

Quote: Earnest

over the years, the continuity was lost, some were disbanded and that's it, again everyone is shooting at the chest and "P"

That is why I prove to our Ministry of Defense that it is necessary to change article 155 of the AK-74 manual and the course of fire. The submachine gunner must and can hit the head target! And this must be recorded in the regulatory documents, otherwise the finds of individual people will be lost. Look at the comments to my article "Freaks in military uniform" on this site: at one time the special forces (the Ministry of Internal Affairs, apparently) taught to shoot at the main target from a machine gun even a master of sports, a repeated champion of the country in shooting sports. And now we have not heard about this technique, it was not included in the regulatory documents and therefore lost.

BEAT THE AUTOMATICIAN TO BEAT THE HEAD - IN THE REGULATORY DOCUMENTS OF DEFENSE!

[jjj]

Quote: Earnest

I support the author, because, being a platoon / commander / company commander / commander / commander myself, I demanded to "re-fire" the AK in a quiet manner precisely at the sight 3

Received the AKS-74 in March 1977. The whole brigade shot in "milk". Then the work of sighting began. It is for the main goal. Already in the fall, fifty of us have become Marksmen. At night, without special night devices, they hit a light bulb at 300 meters

[chunga-changa]

I agree with the author. Previously, the scheme was different. Artillery and TNW strike on defense, then tank wedges and motorized infantry and aviation covering them. In defense, engineering support and an increase in fire density to a statistically necessary level. Specifically, you hit, no, it doesn’t matter, statistics claim that the enemy will suffer a loss of 0,4 from the total impact, so it will be so. Now they have taken the path of various special forces, and the approach to the defeat system has remained the same. The British, as you know, don’t clean their guns with bricks, but in order to draw the attention of our managers to this, a lost Crimean war was needed. Repetition of mother teaching?

[Svateev]

Quote: chunga-changa

increasing the density of fire to a statistically necessary level. Specifically, you hit, no, it doesn’t matter, the statistics claim that the enemy will suffer 0,4 losses from the total impact, so it will be so.

1) How famously do you manage statistics! And she is an exact science. And if he says that the probability of getting such and such, he always indicates under WHAT CONDITIONS.
For example, I point out in the article that when shooting with the scope "3" the probability of hitting is up to 4 times better than with the scope "P" or "4". This means that if you shoot from "3", then the total losses of the enemy will no longer be 0,4 (for example), but more. And if the machine gunner is also aiming, then the enemy's losses will be even greater. And if you put the correct optics on machine guns and machine guns, then in general nothing will remain of the enemy.
Therefore, it is very important: you are the one who got it or not. General statistics are made up of these "you".
2) For you, if you are with a gun, it doesn’t matter what nuclear weapons, artillery or aviation have done to you there. That enemy that is in front of you is yours and you and no one else should deal with it. Therefore, it is necessary to learn how to shoot machine gunners OUTDEPENDENCE on what kind of war they are preparing for - for a global nuclear missile or for special operations as part of a small group.

[chunga-changa]

What does the machine have to do with it, I did not write hit statistics, I wrote - the total impact, there is a difference. Under the USSR, it was assumed that with the proper organization of the battle, the need for machine gun firing may arise, but it will have an auxiliary role. The role of shooters increased during the sweep in the building at a distance of 100-300m and it’s all the same what kind of sight. The remaining tasks were solved by other means and methods. For example, see footage from Syria. If the president’s opponents had tanks and aircraft, they would not have been engaged in this running around with Kalash, but would have acted like government troops - shelling and equipment, under the cover of aviation.
What you are writing about is correct shooting training and there is a new approach, when the infantry in small groups, for example, on the "tigers" are put forward to solve problems on their own. For example, the latter, when in the Crimea, the arrows blocked units with heavy weapons without reinforcement. Here, personal skills of shooting from personal weapons are really very important, from a machine gun to an RPG.

[Svateev]

Quote: chunga-changa

The role of shooters increased during stripping in the building at a range of 100-300m and then it’s all the same what kind of sight

The fact is that just at ranges from 150m to 300m the probability of hitting the head target is low, if you shoot as the AK-74 manual teaches. And it is precisely during the clearing of a settlement or locality, that is, when the enemy has taken up defense and is the main target.
You are right, other means are needed at long ranges. But a direct shot with sights "P" or "4" is ineffective exactly where the machine gun is needed - at short ranges! Therefore, it is necessary to change the manual for the AK-74, regardless of whether the submachine gunner will be assisted by artillery, aviation, etc.
You are right, for a submachine gunner as part of a reconnaissance sabotage group, the ability to shoot accurately is priceless at all, because there is no one else to hope for. But doesn’t the government troops in Syria need their machine gunners to shoot accurately, although there are tanks, artillery and aircraft?

[ty60]

Otherwise, it’s easier to give slingshots to everyone, and they will have to be taught how to handle them.

[fyvaprold]

A similar article should be sent to various research institutes; then, perhaps the situation will change.

[aksai61]

So it will be like in Levsha: "And our guns are cleaned with bricks!"

[gerafak]

It is necessary not only to work on the sights, the main thing - you need the appropriate weapon, on which the corresponding sight will be effective. The AK-74, with all due respect, is ineffective at a distance of 600-700 m, especially in the hands of an ordinary conscript, and there is no way to fix the matter with one sight.

[jjj]

Absolutely correct. I never got into a "tank" 1000 meters from a machine gun. And from Simonov without optics - it turned out in one shot

[Svateev]

Quote: jjj

into the "tank" at 1000 meters ... from Simonov without optics - it turned out with one shot

From SCS ?! "Tank" is of course big, but with one shot ... Admit it, fill it up?

[ty60]

The tracer queue is almost offhand with a slight correction on P. The AK removal up to the right. With some experience, everything is simple.

[Santor]

Quote: Svateev

The answer of the Deputy Minister of Defense, which is posted in the article, he actually did not give me personally, but to the request of the Committee on Defense of the State Duma, which I had to turn to after the dismissal from the Ministry of Defense.
But I have not yet applied to the Prosecutor General's Office. But, there are few prospects: you have to prove the intentionality of the actions. And is there an article "sabotage" in our Criminal Procedure Code?

I propose two options - access to the Reception Room of the President of the Russian Federation - the son of a friend works there and somehow told me all the mechanics and the seriousness of the employees' attitude to the matter.

The second option - write personally to Rogozin - there is his data on the network plus he tweets

[Svateev]

Quote: Santor

I offer two options

Thank you.
Research Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs "STiS" confirmed the low probability of hitting these 400-meter sights. And if now the Main Directorate of Combat Training of the Ministry of Defense, as well as the developer of these sights, the TochPribor Central Design Bureau, and the refinery manufacturer again "hide" from the discussion of the issue on the merits, then the issue will have to be raised to the level of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief.

[DanSabaka]

In Russia, a passive sight was invented and patented, one step ahead of ACOG. It is necessary to begin development work on this new scope.

here about it would be more detailed ....

[Svateev]

Quote: DanSabaka

here about it would be more detailed ....

This is so far only for military research institutes and for manufacturers of sights. If you are one of those, please contact me.[email protected]"

[CRASHBULLET]

Yes, Kalash 7.62 has such a return that he does not need an ACOG sight, but a 15kg tripod)) Let's see what they do at 112, it’s like 5.45 and the initial speed is high.

[jjj]

And at the same time 7,62 likes to "turn up his nose"

[Svateev]

Quote: CRASHBULLET

they will do it on 112, like 5.45 there and the initial speed is high.

Do you mean AK-12? And due to what there can be a large initial bullet speed with the same cartridge? Longer barrel? But this has already been implemented in RPK-74, the initial speed has increased from 900m / s to 960m / s. A little better, of course, but not significantly. Further, it makes no sense to lengthen the barrel; the charge of gunpowder is not enough to accelerate the bullet.
We need a new cartridge. In the late 80s, such work was underway, a cartridge with an initial speed of 1150 m / s was created, rifles for it were created and successfully tested. With perestroika, everything faded. But the other day TSNIITOCHMASH announced that it was testing a rifle for a new "unusual caliber for us". Whether this "unusual for us caliber" will be suitable for a machine gun is a question.
Or do you have other information?

[Cpa]

The author has the correct approach, but there is one very cynical moment in the instructions and the BUSV - the density of fire of dock weapons per linear meter along the front, if it exceeds 1 per meter, then the enemy is suppressed by fire. mobility is an anachronism. Military science is still guided by statistics and the principle "one is not a warrior in the field", it is understood that when mobilizing for a war, soldiers do not know how to shoot. Thanks to the author for the article , first you need to change the mindset of the general, the instructions and sights will immediately change.

[go]

Quote: KPA

The author has the correct approach, but there is one very cynical moment in the instructions and the BUSV - the density of fire of dock weapons per linear meter along the front, if it exceeds 1 per meter, then the enemy is suppressed by fire. mobility is an anachronism. Military science is still guided by statistics and the principle "one is not a warrior in the field", it is understood that when mobilizing for a war, soldiers do not know how to shoot. Thanks to the author for the article , first you need to change the mindset of the general, the instructions and sights will immediately change.

100 pluses for! As the classic said - the problem is not in the outhouses, the problem is in the heads. Interestingly, we have a general development in military education, so that people are taught new technologies and techniques ... will the experience of the latest campaigns be systematized or will it be as usual - people will leave and knowledge will leave?

[Cpa]

War will teach you how to fight, at what cost ..

[alex86]

And here I am in 88 in the year of retraining in the winter shot from a prone position with a blizzard and vision -5.5 from AKM - they said, about 10 meters above the target. And to me that all this cunning mechanics ... I would have to build something ...

[yehat]

the weather is weather, but the shooting potential in the field, where the line of sight is 2-3 km, is also needed

[alex86]

Yes, I’m in the order of self-criticism and the actual state of affairs — there’s no practice, such as I — the majority, if something happens - no sights will come in handy for soldiers like me — only from the abdomen by the height of 30 meters (well, 50) . Or with a shahid’s belt.

[zulusuluz]

You read the comments - like smart people. Have you forgotten about the wind? The sight cannot precisely measure it. But about accuracy, so here practice is more important. And in Russia, unfortunately, this is bad ...

[Cpa]

"The wind blows a bullet like that - throw two away from the sight!"

[jjj]

Now, as you think, practice is enough

[badger1974]

I won't catch up with one, why do you need an optical sight for a weapon that should "pour" lead on the enemy, and the owner of this weapon is in a mental state when a wide field of view is needed, and optics only narrows the field of view, in my opinion the article is complete, although the calculations are normal, but they are relevant specific tasks of a person in a platoon, which is armed with SVD with PSO1 (but maybe something more), why should you attach a sight to AKM or PC? it is completely incomprehensible to the author to take part in battles, then I would not publish articles about optics on general rifle rifle, PS-how do you like optics on PM? in my opinion a worthy weapon for bloat

[jjj]

And collimators offer

[Svateev]

Quote: badger1974

a weapon that should "pour" lead on the enemy

The desire to "throw lead" in a company is removed by a simple technique:
1. You are building a company behind the firing line so that everyone can see with their own eyes.
2. Aimingly, you make two lines of 100 cartridge from a range of 3m. Bring a target, count holes. It turns out 4-5 holes.
3. You also aim and land the same target from the same 100 store (30 cartridges). Bring a target, count holes. It will turn out from 4 to 6 (do not believe it - try it).
4. You ask a simple question: why ... the extra 24 cartridge was released ?! Reassure your nerves and be left without cartridges ?!

Quote: badger1974

optics only narrows the field of view

It depends on what sight. First, there are wide-angle optics. There are collimators where you can't close the other eye. By the way, everything that is written in the article also applies to collimators. After all, they, as a rule, have one sighting mark and, as a rule, they lead to a "chest" range of 400m.
ACOG is even more interesting. In the article I examined only ACOG ballistics. But their manufacturer claims that with these 4's multiple sights the second eye is not necessary to close, even recommends not to close. It is claimed that a person could choose a picture between his eyes: when the sight moves and it has a kaleidoscope, the brain sees with the second eye without a sight, and when the sight stops, the brain immediately selects the picture through the sight, since it is larger - more informative.

[ty60]

At distances of 500-700 meters, solve the tasks of a killed sniper. At 150-500, in fact, tasks of a machine gunner. It’s more universal to be.

[Massik]

I still don’t understand where does the 1PN93-2 scope predominantly night at 200m at night and during the day (using a darkening lens) maximum ??? Well, at least PKN-03 would be mentioned, albeit big, but awesome and clear at night, but you won’t scrub it))) All distances are 500-600m, and not every sniper gets into such a battle with 10x. AK up to 200m running, 300 already a stretch, if we shoot in the head. I bought an unpretentious Racurs for the sighting quite adapted, SUKS easily handed over the heads.

[Svateev]

Quote: Marssik

1PN93-2 sight mainly at night at 200 distance at night and day (using a darkening lens) maximum

1. That's just at a distance from 150m bullets and go above the head! At least until 200, but you need to hit, but this sight does not allow you to hit!
2. Did I draw marks up to "10" (1000m) on this scope ?! The developer of this sight (Tochpribor) and the manufacturer (refinery) in the instruction manual of this sight guarantee a target detection range at night of 400m, and under certain conditions (full moon, etc.) - further.

Quote: Marssik

Well, if only PKN-03 would be mentioned, albeit big, but awesome and clear at night, but you won’t scrub it)))

1. The Ministry of Defense purchases 3500 1PN93-2 pieces, not the "awesome PKN-03". You should be surprised at this circumstance, but you are offended at me - "smear".
2. I also got angry when I saw all these ballistic errors at Tochpribor! After all, they also designed PSO-1, where the marks from "1" start and step - 100m, and from a distance of 300m, the step is generally 50m. That is, the one who designed the PSO-1 was smart in ballistics. And those who designed 1PN93-2 ... .... ... !!!

Quote: Marssik

All the 500-600m distances, and not every sniper will hit such a battle with 10

500-600m in the article are mentioned for growth purposes, as ranges at which the midpoint of hits goes beyond the contours of even these goals. The machine gunner can get into the growth at these ranges, if not in one queue, but it can.

Quote: Marssik

AK to 200m running, 300 already a stretch, if we shoot in the head. I bought an unpretentious Racurs for the sighting quite adapted, SUKS easily handed over the heads.

Baaaaa! Yes, we are like-minded! Maybe it should beat the head machine!
But now try not to answer: how did you bring the machine gun with the "Rakurs" to battle in order to "hand over the SUKS over the heads"? Exactly according to the "Rakursa" instructions? Or in your own way? and how exactly in your own way?

[Massik]

The Ministry of Defense is purchasing 3500 1PN93-2 units, not the "awesome PKN-03". You should be surprised at this circumstance, but you are offended at me - "smear".

I didn’t serve in the Ministry of Defense, but in the Special Forces of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Interior Ministry; these 3500 pieces for the entire enormous Defense Ministry seem like a drop in the ocean.

[Free Island]

many thanks to the author of the article. It was interesting for me to read as an arrow, a hunter from an early childhood and just a fan of all sorts of carbines, rifles and optical sights. I would like to try this ACOG in practice, is it really that good. In general, I am able to use both our aiming and western (I prefer MILDOT from ovskie) but ... when I didn’t measure the distance on the aiming nets ... I shoot quickly, I don’t think for a long time and I have never missed (since 14 years old, now I’m 34) from one long barrel. The only thing I can not make friends with anyone is Makarov’s pistol)) so that in addition to the sights of nets and technologies, the shooter should grow hands from there, there should be a flair and a head on his shoulders. Not for nothing that our best snipers in the world were and will be. It doesn’t matter with a three-ruler, with an old SVD or with a slingshot from a branch and a medical tourniquet. But technologies certainly need to be developed, thanks again for the article, I hope we will come to the leading position in the world in this matter as well))

[yehat]

+1 I shoot from a long barrel for sure, I can’t from Makarov :)
ps biathlon rifles sucks, terribly uncomfortable in ergonomics!
but it’s also easier to shoot from them than from Makarov.

[SLX]

Quote: Svateev

That is, an optical sight ... dramatically increases the likelihood of a hit.

In theory or in the greenhouse conditions of the landfill. In reality, combat stress is the cause of the vast majority of misses for the average shooter. Therefore, "dramatically increases" in reality will not be as significant an increase as in theory.

Quote: Svateev

Therefore, in recent years, many armies of the world have been actively equipping with optical sights not only sniper rifles, but also automatic small arms.

The conclusion "therefore" must be carefully proven. Because there is a huge amount of money behind the equipment of army small arms with optics. And what has a greater impact - improving the performance characteristics or the manufacturer's mercantile interests - is still a very big question.

Quote: Svateev

And there is no alternative to this process.

This, too, must be carefully proved. Firstly, it’s time to change the system of small arms. And not the fact that in the new target system a la the head of the adversary will be struck from the AK-74 by poorly trained conscripts or fat-bellied reservists. Secondly, poorly trained conscripts and contract soldiers, trained no better, no optical sights will help if they shoot three rounds of ammunition twice a year and with a mechanical sight they cannot even get an elephant in the ass from a hundred meters.

Quote: Svateev

That is, in these sights a new method of measuring the distance to the target was used: the range is determined not by the angular height, but by the angular width of the target. The shooter only needs to choose the horizontal risk, the width of which is equal to the shoulder width of the target. And measuring range and setting the aiming angle - in one step!

The width of the shoulders is different, real distances do not always correspond to as many as hundreds of meters, the angle of the target is also far from always strictly frontal, etc. Therefore, errors with such a measuring mark will be immeasurable. And when the arrow hits a typical target a la the upper right part of the carcass, slightly sticking out due to vertical shelter, then he will generally have to determine the distance based on his experience.

Quote: Svateev

Therefore, you can measure the distance to the head by half the horizontal risks.

Can. But with what mistake and at what speed? And again: how to accurately measure the range to half sticking out due to the shelter of the head or a small part of the head in the embrasure? Therefore, it is not a panacea, and it is necessary to carefully prove the significance of the frequency of those cases when this miracle meter can measure something accurately.

Quote: Svateev

Extremely fast, simple and intuitive even for lay people.

And why in modern combat laymen?

Quote: Svateev

ACOG allows you to refuse a direct shot and shoot accurately.

Nothing that machine gunners fire in bursts and often aim during the firing process to clarify? Or did the machine gun die, long live ACOG?

[Svateev]

Quote: SLX

In reality, the reason for the vast majority of misses in the average shooter is combat stress

1. "It must be proved." Where does this categorical statement come from? Again - your personal experience? Have you fixed the reasons for the miss in the battle? Or, as always - an opinion "from the ceiling"?
2. If you shoot with a "P" or "4" scope, then the main reason for missing the head target will not be stress, but ballistics - the bullets go above the target! But when a fighter from the third or fourth round did not hit, that's when he gets stressed and he begins to randomly water the target area with a long queue.
If the fighter hits the first or second stage, then he is confident in himself and the stress turns into an amazing concentration, speed and clarity of action. This is my experience.

Quote: SLX

The conclusion "therefore" must be carefully proven

Yes, it is proved in the article - with optics, three shooting errors are reduced by an order of magnitude (with 91% they become equal to the rest of 9%). And this is not my data, but the Central Research Institute of Information. I give links in the text. Too lazy to read? Or too lazy to think?

Quote: SLX

First, it's time to change the small arms system

Oh how! Why shoot with a different aim - you do not understand, but about the whole system of small arms - a great special!

Quote: SLX

And not the fact that in the new target system a la the adversary’s head will be struck from AK-74 by poorly trained conscripts or fat-bellied reservists.

And therefore, while the small arms system has not been changed - we sit back and do not even improve what can be improved? I know I know. Each time you express this point of view.
And let me ask you, who, besides conscripts or fat-armed reservists, will hit the main targets on the battlefield? We’ll put generals in every trench? Or will aliens come to fight for us? The main target, along with the sniper, MAY AND SHOULD HIT AUTOMATICIANS - conscripts and thick-bellied reservists.

Quote: SLX

poorly trained conscripts and contractors, trained no better, no optical sights will help

Which sight is easier and faster to learn to use - the intuitive ACOG, where aiming is a single operation and you don’t need to calculate and memorize anything, or 1ПН93-2 AK-74, where you need to perform five operations for aiming, one of which is mental calculation, at the same time, you need to remember the size of the grid and be able to determine the height of the target by eye?
ACOG conscript and pot-bellied reservist master for one shooting. But 1PN93-2 AK-74 not every conscript will master before demobilization.
A well thought-out scope like ACOG is exactly what you need for quick and easy learning. Therefore, there is no need here about the fact that "nothing will help"!

[ty60]

I completely agree. Sometimes the width of the aiming strip is enough to estimate the range. But the time for calculations is for the sniper. A different range and quality of the shot. The fighter should not waste time thinking, the target will disappear. Once again, it appears that it’s affected in the same place but at a different range. The main factor here is speed. And the density of fire is not always physically on itself. it is possible to drag. It is necessary to be more rational.

[Svateev]

Quote: ty60

the width of the aiming bar is enough to estimate the range

Right. And there’s a way - in terms of cover value of the front sight.

THE WIDTH OF THE MOUSE AK-74 IS EQUAL TO THE WIDTH OF THE GOAL (HER SHOULDER) AT THE RANGE OF 200 METERS.

From this reference range (OD), the remaining ranges are easily calculated: target width 1 / 2 front sight = 2 * OD = 400m, 1 / 3 front sight = 3 * OD = 600m, 2 front sight = 1 / 2 * OD = 100.
Since the head is 2 times narrower than the shoulders, then its OD = 100m. Hence 1 / 2 flies - 200m, 1 / 3 flies - 300m, etc.

IMPORTANT! Since the cover value of the front sight depends on the distance of the eye to the front sight, and this distance depends on the dimensions of a particular submachine gunner, then each submachine gun must determine its OD on the shooting range - at what distance does it have a target width (with shoulders - 5, 6, etc. .) will be equal to the width of the fly. You can also determine OD for the head, especially in demand at the training sites for the initial exercise, where there are no more ranges than 100m.
And use your od. For example, if your own OD on the shoulders was equal to 250m, then 1 / 2 flies - 500m, etc.

[Svateev]

Quote: SLX

Shoulder width different

Right. But the growth of people is also different, because the errors in measuring to the GROWTH goal in both width and height will be the same. But when measuring BEFORE ALL THE OTHER OBJECTIVES to the head inclusive, the measurement errors in width are much smaller than the measurements in height. Moreover, we measure the scale for growth purposes.
I showed it in the article. When will you read articles before criticizing them?

Quote: SLX

real distances do not always correspond to as many as hundreds of meters

Right. But this does not apply to measuring the range, but to the section "sight rounding error". There is such a section in my article. Did not notice? Do you agree that the 200m range step has reduced the effective fire range?

Quote: SLX

the goal angle is also far from always strictly frontal

Right. That is why ACOG is not suitable for measuring ranges to vehicles - the face and profile of vehicles vary greatly in width.
But the serviceman in combat equipment is in front, that in profile has the same width. Look at the targets from our Shooting Course: a person who is in front, in profile - 50cm, his head is almost half smaller, and also the same as in front and in profile. Americans also think so, that's why they made ACOG for a person.

Quote: SLX

typical target a la right upper part of the carcass slightly sticking out due to vertical cover

What is right, that the left side of the body is accurately measured at half horizontal risks. Just like the whole head in the article of Fig. 3.
And such a goal can be measured on the head, it is usually visible to the whole.

[ty60]

a fat reservist is ready to shoot on the heads up to 400 meters .54 years, points 2.0

[Svateev]

Head range

Quote: SLX

Can. But with what mistake and at what speed?

With the same speed and accuracy as on the shoulders. That is, much faster and more accurate than the height of the target.

Quote: SLX

how to accurately measure the range of up to half sticking out due to the shelter of the head or a small part of the head in the embrasure?

Here the range can not be measured in width. But you can’t measure it in height either. Need a laser rangefinder. But the laser warns the target that they aim at it, and therefore gives it time to take cover. Soon I will post an article about this.

Quote: SLX

Therefore, it is not a panacea and it is necessary to carefully prove the significance

Yes, the significance is proved in the article. But give you a panacea. And since this, in principle, cannot be - then sit-s and wait-s?

Quote: SLX

And why in modern combat laymen?

I remember the same words were said to me by the military leaders of King Hammurabi :).
Well, Roman for sure. They talked. And then, to repel Hannibal, they called up three times (or more, who remembers?) Instead of the defeated armies. And they spoke again. And again they carried out a call to fight against Spartak. And they spoke again. And the people finally believed them and refused to be called up. And I had to hire "professionals" from across the hill. Which destroyed the Roman Empire.
I lucidly explained where you are pulling us?

THE DESIGN OF THE SHOOT WEAPON SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO QUICKLY MAKE A PROFESSIONAL FROM ANY DRAWER. And ACOG allows you to do this much faster than 1PN93-2.

Quote: SLX

Nothing that machine gunners fire in bursts and often aim during the firing process

Nothing. ACOG allows you to immediately shoot accurately, and not hope for subsequent adjustment of the fire.
And then, have you yourself tried to "clarify the tip while firing a burst"? And did it work?

[yehat]

Quote: SLX

Nothing that machine gunners fire in bursts and often aim during the firing process to clarify? Or did the machine gun die, long live ACOG?

in fire contact, the time it takes to hit the target is important. while you shoot from a machine gun, while you add on a tip, you’ll get a mine from a mortar or a hole in your forehead. In addition, active shooting from one place, and even with tracers, greatly unmasks, which increases attention to this specific target.

And if you get a short burst immediately, there is a chance that they will not notice, and will not have time to answer.

[SLX]

Quote: Svateev

The universal classical method loses to the specialized ACOG method precisely in what the machine gun or machine gun was created for - in defeating the enemy’s manpower.

Loses? With these numbers confirm? Or is it just your guesses so far?

Quote: Svateev

When discussing on the Military Review portal the above article “An assault rifle must and can hit a head figure”, some commentators reproached me that I was wasting this question in vain, saying that in a battle the requirement of article 155 of the AK-74 Manual can be ignored and not fired with sights "4" or "P", and with a sight "3".

Do not dissemble! You were not blamed for this - you were blamed for the fact that you want to remake sights from millions of machine guns while the problem is solved much easier.

Quote: Svateev

But the new sights of the refinery, as we can see, simply do not have the "3" mark.

Yes, this is an omission of the manufacturer. It would be nice to have it. But here is the fact that its absence will lead to such consequences:

Quote: Svateev

In this situation, the separation of the enemy with all its M-16 with ACOG in the very first seconds of the fire duel destroys the sniper of our branch. And the rest of our department turns into a target in the dash.

- This too must be carefully proved. Or admit that you ... mmmmm ... have a somewhat original idea of ​​modern combat, which comes down to fire duels between projections a la head. At the same time, there are no means of close combat, our fighters not only do nothing, but also depict the targets (are they really in full growth?) ... Maybe you can start with the basics - justifying the frequency of such duels and their significance in modern battle?

Quote: Svateev

Our machine gunners and machine gunners must also beat the head targets!

This is a statement by a housewife, not a military professional. What distance? At what expense? In what time? With what probability? Etc. In the meantime, you are urging us to make usih snipers in all situations. This, of course, is possible, but the profitability of this path raises deep doubts.

Quote: Svateev

And for this, in 1PN93-2 AK-74 it was enough to provide at least one more mark - 350m (approximate range of a direct shot at the main target) or at least 300m, as in a sectorial "mechanical" sight.

Or maybe it’s better to teach shooters how to correctly aim the aiming point? All the same, it is necessary to change it, because the wind, elevation, inconsistency of the real range of the exposed sight, etc.

[Svateev]

Quote: SLX

Loses? With these numbers confirm?

There are calculated figures for range measurement errors in the article. Did not notice?
And by the speed of aiming, you yourself can confirm. Observe how long it will take you to complete all five operations with 1PN93-2. And then compare this with the time it takes to complete the very first operation — with range measurement on a rangefinder scale. Because

AIMING WITH ACOG CONCLUDES IN ONE OPERATION OF RANGE MEASUREMENT - I FOUND THE NEED AT THE WIDTH OF THE RISK - YOU CAN SHOOT!

Quote: SLX

You are not blamed

Well then! Some, especially the Droid, argued just that - there’s no reason to change Article 155 of the AK-74 Manual and the Firing Course, everything is in other documents and the arrows say they already know which sight to put, and the commanders exist to indicate the right one aim.
So the 1PN93-2 does not have the right sight. Threw out. And you have one comment on this - not that you personally blamed ?!

Quote: SLX

You were blamed that you want to remake sights from millions of machine guns

I did not offer this on the site. In that article, for the existing submachine guns, I suggested changing Article 155 of the Manual on them - to recommend shooting with the scope "3", and not "P" or "4". Have you forgotten already? I suggested changing the method of shooting, not the sighting device. And I suggested making a new sight on new machines.

But I proposed to change the sights on existing machines in a letter to the factory - the manufacturer of AK. Since the new assault rifle under the old 5,45 cartridge obviously will not penetrate the new full-time body armor (their armor-piercing bullet from the SVD practically does not penetrate at point blank range!), The new assault rifle must be developed again, starting with the new cartridge. While this will drag on - the plant needs to live with something and the modernization of existing machines is a rational solution.
But how did you find out about this my proposal?

Quote: SLX

while the problem is solved much easier

How?

[Svateev]

Quote: SLX

But here is the fact that its absence will lead to such consequences: Quote: Svateev In this situation, the separation of the enemy with all its M-16 with ACOG in the first seconds of a fire duel destroys the sniper of our squad. And the rest of our unit turns into targets in a dash. - This also must be carefully proved

Proven. The probability of hitting is indicated - 0,19 with a "P" scope versus 0,87 with an accurate sight (ACOG). Anyone who is at least a little familiar with military affairs will understand everything further without words: after the first rounds in our department there are 8-9 killed, in their department - a maximum of 2. They are guaranteed to finish off those who remain in our department with the second round.
You did not study at a military school?

Quote: SLX

somewhat original ideas of modern combat, reduced to fire duel between projections a la head

And in your opinion, in a fire duel, the arrows stick out "a la belt target" ?! These are not mine, but your ideas ... mmmmm ... are original.

Quote: SLX

There is no melee weapon

Yes Yes. Where can we go without the notorious "leave the submachine gunner alone, someone will support him, someone will decide his goals for him."
Well, this argument has already been passed many times! Is it still not clear that every element of the fire system must shoot as accurately as possible? This is a war, while you wait for "other means of close combat" you will be killed inadvertently!

Quote: SLX

but they also portray the targets (is it not at full height?) ...

I don’t need to attribute your views. I show the ratio of losses not between our growth goals, but theirs - the main goals. All of them are heads, but even so we are "out".

Quote: SLX

Can you start with the basics - justifying the frequency of such duels and their significance in modern combat?

Or maybe you turn on the TV and look at these duels in the east of Ukraine?

[Svateev]

Quote: SLX

What distance? At what expense? In what time? With what probability? Etc.

Wow, what terms do you know! Not a housewife, no.
But here is the fact that all this data is indicated in the article, as well as a link to the first article, where all these data are calculated, and also that you also commented on the first article - what does that mean?
Are you blind or what?

Quote: SLX

In the meantime, you are urging us to make usih snipers in all situations. This, of course, is possible, but the profitability of this path raises deep doubts

In order for the machine gunner to help the sniper to the 300-350 range, you just need to print the changes to the AK-74 Manual, the new Firing Course and slightly correct the target situation at the shooting ranges. A ridiculous price for increasing the probability of getting up to 4 times!
And if "deep doubts" have not left you yet, get baptized more often, maybe it will help.

Quote: SLX

Or maybe it’s better to teach shooters how to correctly aim the aiming point?

No, not better. Because when shooting a direct shot with a "P" or "4" sight, the aiming point should be changed (moved below the lower edge of the target) only at those ranges where the average trajectory is higher than the head target - at ranges from 150m to 300m. If you aim closer to 150m or more than 300m in this way, then the average trajectory may be even lower than the lower edge of the target. That is, it is necessary to teach submachine gunners to accurately determine the range from 150m to 300m. And even if there is a carriage for teaching time, then this method will still slow down the aiming process itself: a direct shot, which is just good and fast, because the exact distance to the target is not required to be determined, we will load it with the need to determine the range and then decide again, whether it is necessary to shift the aiming point or not!
No, this method is not better! I know him from the end of 80's.

Quote: SLX

mismatch of the real range of the exposed sight

Whoa! We are talking about a direct shot, what is the "discrepancy between the real range of the exposed sight" ?! With such a shot, the only thing that makes the aiming point shift is a strong side wind. So that - we shift horizontally. And if you "don't care" whether to take into account only one wind, or also add the hemorrhoids described above with a vertical shift of the aiming point, then the flag is in your hands. But just do not burden all the machine gunners with this.

[SLX]

Quote: Svateev

And these 1PN93-2 AK-74, our Ministry of Defense buys 3,5 thousand pieces (!)

Tyuyuyuyu ... This is such a drop in the ocean! And the reinstallation of the new reticle, EMNIP, refers to the average repair carried out in the district optical workshops.

Quote: Svateev

For effective firing at the head target, the "chest" sights of the refinery should not be brought to normal combat.

Again: sights are designed not only for head purposes. Therefore, what and where to bring - it is necessary to prove not only the consideration of shooting at the main target.

Quote: Svateev

I emphasize that this method of correcting the “chest” optical sight is good because it does not require retraining of machine gunners. All the skills that have been developed from machine gunners in accordance with Art. 155 AK-74 manuals, remain: aim a low target at the bottom edge, and a running one - at the middle (Fig. 7).

You simply went in cycles in this 155 article and lagged behind a life. For several years now, the methods of practical shooting have quite officially gone to the Moscow Region. Therefore, the entire manual on the AK-74 must be changed for a long time.

Quote: Svateev

Weapons should be different accuracy of the wording and schemes in the documentation, and such "blunders" of our manufacturers reduce the credibility of our weapons.

Need to be fined. And revive military acceptance.

Quote: Svateev

But copying ACOG is not advisable: in Russia, a passive sight was invented and patented, one step ahead of ACOG. It is necessary to begin development work on this new sight.

What are the problems? In the defense of money swollen unmeasured. And if the defense is slowing down, then other businessmen will seize on the patented sight.

Quote: Svateev

I have been proving to the Ministry of Defense and the plant these shortcomings for a year and a half. Woz and now there. Therefore, unveiling is the only remaining way.

This is not a publicity - not the right information platform. And it will never become the level of "Kalashnikov". And to the level of "Soldier of Fortune" she still has to grow and grow, and this must be done correctly, and not like now. Therefore, if we are to publish it in an adult way, then it should be in the appropriate places.

Quote: Svateev

Therefore, the theory of "one shot" must really be perceived as the theory of "one shot".

Do not confuse warm and green. Great professionals have long abandoned the queues and work alone. Therefore, to each his own.

[Svateev]

Quote: SLX

Tyuyuyuyu ... This is such a drop in the ocean!

3,5 thousand guys armed with this shit and doomed to lose a fire duel - "a drop in the ocean" ?! Do you know what you're talking about?

[Svateev]

Quote: SLX

Again: sights are designed not only for head purposes

That's it! Have done shit, and the troops with him must choose: either hit all targets, but only up to a range of 300m (350m), or hit further 300m, but not all targets - leave the main targets to "other means of close combat."

1PN93-2 The mark "4" without a doubt should be brought to a range of 300m (or better - to 350m, if you find what the excess for the sight "3,5" should be at a distance of 100m. In the instructions for the sight, this figure, of course, is not). Marks larger than "4" in this scope are still drawn for beauty: even according to the instructions, this scope allows you to see a target (tall!) Only up to 400m. And above in the comments they even say that no further than 200m. Therefore, marks beyond 400m are not needed.

Optical (day) 400 meter sights. The troops need to decide what is more important for the submachine gunner in their specific situation: to hit everything, but only up to a range of 300m (350m), or to hit further 300m, but forget about the main target, including at short ranges, because it is impossible to even set a sight exact range - there are no marks closer to "4"!

Quote: SLX

And the reinstallation of the new reticle, EMNIP, refers to the average repair carried out in the district optical workshops

Have you read the answer of the Deputy Minister of Defense in the article? The Ministry of Defense does not want to change the nets to the correct ones! "Provide for additional sighting of sights at a distance of 300m" - this is their solution, and let the troops choose the best out of two bad "sighting" options.
Ah, yes, you don’t know how to read articles.

Quote: SLX

All AK-74 manual should be changed for a long time.

Oops! Yes, you are a reformer with us! Moreover, it is very large, global, so to speak: "change the entire system of small arms" or "the entire manual for the AK-74."
But on one specific long-overdue change that I propose, how many negative comments have been written by the evona! And it was not lazy, you are our "reformer".

[Svateev]

Quote: SLX

Need to be fined. And revive military acceptance

Gold words! But not for our case. After all, the Ministry of Defense ordered these "bloopers", accepts them, does not give instructions to the plant to correct the "blooper". And for this the plant must be fined ?! It is enough for the Ministry of Defense to demand from the plant to correct the lack of documentation and the plant will do it instantly.

Quote: SLX

This is not the unveiling - the wrong information platform

Voennoye Obozreniye is one of the best sites on military topics. And you shouldn't give a damn about the site that allows you to post your pearls.

Quote: SLX

Therefore, if we publish it in an adult way, then it is necessary in appropriate places.

The article was previously published in the Bulletin of the Academy of Military Sciences. This is stated at the very beginning of the article. Is the Academy of Military Sciences a children's sandbox for you? Then introduce yourself or something! Maybe I will prostrate myself before such an authority.

Quote: SLX

Great professionals have long abandoned the queues and work single

A professional, especially a large one, knows that it is impossible to get rid of dispersion of shots. Therefore, starting from a certain range, the probability of hitting one shot becomes insufficient. And therefore, starting from this range, it is necessary to shoot in a burst even at a motionless target, not to mention the moving one.

[goose]

Quote: jjj

Once I had a chance to shoot from a D-30, however, sub-caliber ones. I saw the sight for the first time in my life. The target designation was given by the lieutenant colonel. He told in plain language what scale to use, where to aim. I "knocked out" the tank with the first shot. The second "took down the tower". Distance 500 meters. The lieutenant colonel said that I can safely be a gunner

For such a gun, 500 m is not an indicator, deviations are minimal. Real guidance starts from 1,5 km to about 4-5, when direct aiming is possible, and even from low ballistics, then you need to accurately measure the distance, and use tables, not just a sight.
PS I would also shoot from 2A42, there, up to 1 km, I stupidly cross the target and could hit it with one shot. No thought process is needed.

[Svateev]

Quote: goose

I stupidly cross the target aiming MAY

Mademoiselle ??? !!!!!
And "avatar" is not a "freak" put by a dork ?? !! And the comment is smart!
You hit not only the target from 2A42! You hit me on the spot and several hundred more readers!
I kiss the pens (virtually)!

[Gloster]

Akog is a good sight, but not so good that anyone gets from the machine with him at the growth (at least) target, not to mention the head one. Otherwise, it would not be necessary to teach snipers to shoot every year. but just to give everyone a good sight ... So the article pursues some strange goals that are incomprehensible to me, because replete with a bunch of strange thoughts. I shoot long distances myself, and I studied different sights, and different aiming nets, so I have an idea about the subject.

[Svateev]

Quote: Gloster

replete with a bunch of strange thoughts

What exactly seemed strange to you? Specify, discuss.
And then your comment looks strange: "I'm special, I'm strange", but what exactly is strange - they did not say.

[SkyMaXX]

I have always thought that our shooters shoot very badly because of bad sights. I don't know why the Ministry of Defense is saving on this. They would have given the terms of reference for the production of a well-thought-out, easy-to-learn single sight for accurate shooting for machine guns and machine guns. Also, all AK assault rifles in service with the Russian army should be equipped with convenient Cobra-type collimator sights.

[doxtop]

Or maybe the whole thing is in "direct hands" !? not so long ago I found a vidos from one Amerovsky tovarischa on the Internet! ))
The prologue is this: Dude is the founder and leader of the Kalashnikov machine gun club (any, but still prefer Soviet and Russian samples).
The video itself: In one of them, this person tells from the technique he developed of using standard sighting devices (for example, AKM and AK-74m) and competent sighting of machine guns. Respect and respect to the dude! For half an hour the video told and showed everything in such an accessible and competent manner that even having the army experience of communicating with the "kalach" unexpectedly I learned a lot of interesting things for myself!
Dude, using the zeroing methods shown ... guaranteed to hit targets at ranges from 23 to 457 meters (25-500 yards). Moreover, at ranges from 23 to 91 meters ... when firing both from the AKM and from the 74th, I laid three bullets each and three bullets fired (in automatic mode) as if I was a bull's-eye. Well, at a distance of 457 meters ... out of three fired bursts of three cartridges - 6 bullets fell into the "chest" target itself and only the first and last went below and above the target, and the penultimate one passed 12-15 cm from the target.
The ultimate! Many will now say: "Feeley at 25 meters then you will not get, but even at 100" and they will be right. However, the dude kept firing as soon as the line of sight coincided with the line of sight!
By the way !!! I never even thought about any other way of fixing the machine when shooting, except for those that were indicated in combat manuals. However, those things that this American showed me were almost shocking! Pancake! And indeed ... only by slightly twisting the hull and changing the coverage you can create for yourself a much more stable platform than indicated in our manuals!
In general ... a hundred times already regretted that he did not download that video. Yes, I didn’t even write down the addresses where I saw it all. :(

[Taras]

the comparison is not correct !!! judging by the scale of the targets, either the multiplicity is different, or the Amer’s specialist is increased!
try to reduce the aiming bar of Amer’s compared to ours, there you can’t determine the shoulder width at all, not to mention the ranges above 600m.