Military Review

New machines are useless without new sights

253
Machines with improved accuracy of fire are not in demand. Why?


AK-12 and А-545 (АЕК-971) automatic rifles undergoing state tests have the accuracy of shooting (less) times in 1,5-2, which is less than AK-74, which is unconditionally considered an improvement.

However, in the Russian Federation there is already an automaton, the accuracy of the first two bullets of which is significantly, according to some information, up to 20 times better. This is a Nikonov AN-94 assault rifle, which has been in service for quite a few years, but has not received the kind of distribution that it would seem to be guaranteed with such good accuracy. A more complex AH-94 device is constantly being noted, but there is no significant increase in combat effectiveness — an increase in the probability of hitting real targets in battle. If you do not understand the reasons for the lack of demand for better accuracy of AN-94, then AK-12 and A-545 will repeat his fate.

It is known that the best accuracy of fire guarantees an increase in the probability of hitting only if the average hit point (STF) does not go beyond the contours of the target. If STP is behind the contours of the target, then the best accuracy can reduce the probability of hitting [1, section 4.10. Optimal dispersion of shots]. On Fig.1 it is shown that, reducing the accuracy, we though increase the density of the fire inside the dispersion ellipse, but reduce the area of ​​the target covered by the dispersion. Therefore, if the STP is beyond the contours of the target, the probability of hitting will increase or decrease while the shooting accuracy decreases, it is necessary to calculate for each specific case.

New machines are useless without new sights

Fig.1. Scheme compiled by the author

It is important to understand that Fig. 1 is not an abstraction, this is exactly what happens in combat with AK-74: at ranges of 150-300 and the main number of bullets go above the dead infantry. The fact is that AK-74 sights are optimized for a direct shot at too high - a chest target whose height is 0,5 m (Fig.3, target No.6). The AK-74 Guide [2, article 155] requires you to shoot a direct shot from the “P” or “400” marks to the range of 4 m. At the sector sight AK-74 there is a special mark “P” - the range of a direct shot at the chest target. And almost all mounted sights for AK-74 - collimator, optical, night, thermal imaging, etc. - do not have target marks less than “4” (400 m), for example, 1P29 optical sight, 1P77, 1P78, night sight 1PN93-2 AK-74 (Fig.2) and others. On the collimator sights, the only aiming mark is also reduced to the 400 m range. That is, with mounted sights, the machine gunner does not even have the technical capability to shoot at 400 meters from a different mark than the 4.


Fig.2. Figure from Guide to the 1PN93-2 sight

The height of the trajectory “4” is equal to 0,4 m [2, “Basic table AK-74”], and therefore a direct shot from this tag is effective only for targets not lower than 0,4 m. The height of the trajectory “P” is even greater - 0,5 m, and therefore a direct shot with this tag is effective only for targets not lower than 0,5 m.

And in battle, man instinctively seeks to hide behind the parapet. Behind the parapet, they demand that foreign armies, for example, the US Army [3], take the position and instructions of foreign armies. Therefore, the main goal in the battle for our machine gunners is the shooter behind the parapet [4]. Veterans of the fighting in Afghanistan recall: “In battle, only the“ caps ”of the dushmans were visible above the stones. It was into these “caps” that one had to fall! ”


Fig.3. Matching targets #5 and #6 to real goals

The shooter behind the parapet has the height of the entire 0,3 m (Fig.3, target No.5) and in our course of shooting is indicated by the head targets №№ 5, 5a and 5б. The “4” trajectory rises above the arrow behind the parapet at distances from 150 to 300 [2, the table “Exceeding trajectories over the aiming line, AK-74”]. Therefore, at these ranges, the AK-74 has an insufficient probability of hitting the main target (Fig. 4, label "4").


Fig.4. Calculated by the author

The “P” trajectory (440m) is even higher than the “4” trajectory, and therefore the probability of hitting is even worse - at the 200m range of AK-74, it falls to unacceptable 0,17 (Fig.4, label “P”). The label "P" (440м) can not be used, it must be removed from the sights. Actually, on many mounted sights for AK-74, the “P” label is already absent, and it is necessary to do the same on all sights and to prevent this label from appearing in the future, since with it the A-545 has a chance of hitting it altogether down to 0,07 (Fig .5, label "P").

Because of the lack of probability of hitting the target with a height of 0,3, machine gunners are on the course of firing the Defense Ministry at head targets and are not firing. None of those exercises of the course of shooting, which are carried out by one submachine gun, has no main goals. Neither in primary, nor in training, nor in control or qualification shooting machine gunners do not shoot at the head target. Moreover, the head target is not found in any exercise of the discharge norms of the unified All-Russian sports classification for the machine gun [the current course of shooting, the 19 application]. Thus, not only during training, control or qualification, but even in the sports category up to the title of “master of sports in shooting sport from a machine gun” machine gunners do not shoot at the head target.

The same thing in the course of shooting for the Interior Ministry troops.

For machine gunners in the exercises of the shooting course, the lying infantry is simulated in a simplified way - high (0,5) targets No. 6, which correspond to the arrow leading the fire while lying on level ground with elbows (Fig.3). This simplification allows machine gunners to get on the shooting range, but leads to ineffective shooting in battle, as in battle a rare crank takes up a position on level ground without a parapet, mostly infantry — this is target number XXUMX (Fig.5).

Simplification is necessary to stop, and for this it is necessary to increase the likelihood of an automaton hitting the main target - the arrow behind the parapet. To hit the target with a height of 0,3, the main way of shooting a machine gunner - with a direct shot - you need to add a mark to the sight, the height of which will be 0,3; we denote this label by “P 0,3”.

With modern sights, reducing accuracy will not increase the likelihood of hitting


Fig.5. The graph is based on the author's calculations.

In Tab.1 we compare how the probability of hitting automatic machines with improved accuracy is changed: A-545 and AK-12.


Tab.1. Indicators A-545 are applicable to other machines that have external ballistics AK-74, but accuracy in 1,5 times better, for example, to AK-12

The main conclusions are:

1. A-545 and AK-12 with modern sights (labeled "4") will have no better combat effectiveness than AK-74.

Line A-545 "4" / AK-74 "4" Tab.1 confirms that with the aiming mark "4" the probability of hitting A-545 is better at those ranges where the STP is in the contours of the target - to 150, and also from 300m to 350-400m, but worse at distances where the STF from the contours of the target came out - from 150m to 250m. For example, at the 200 range, the probability of hitting will be 87% from the same indicator AK-74, that is, it will decrease from 0,43 (Fig.4) to 0,37 (Fig.5).

A separate calculation shows that with improved accuracy in 2, the probability of hitting with the “4” tag at the 200 range decreases even more - to 0,30. And with accuracy in 18-20, times better than AK-74 (the first two bullets of the AH-94 queue) the probability of hitting the “4” mark is indistinguishable from zero, not only at the 200 range, but almost everywhere where STF went beyond the contours targets, that is, at ranges from 150m to 300m.

Thus, for modern sights (for the “4” tag), the better the accuracy of machine gun shooting is, the lower the probability of hitting the main target at ranges from 150 to 250-300.

AK-12 and A-545 with modern sights will show combat effectiveness not better than AK-74, as on average the probability of hitting will increase insignificantly - by 9% (Tab.1, line А-545 "4" / АК-74 "4", average). The combat effectiveness promised by the manufacturers of these machines on 15-20% can only be obtained with the targeting mark “P 0,3” (Tab.1, A-545 row “P 0,3” / AK-74 “P 0,3”, average).

If you do not fix the sights, then upgrading to new machines will be meaningless, as happened with the AN-94.

2. The “P 0,3” label will significantly increase the probability of being hit on all machines.

The label “P 0,3” with improved accuracy increases the likelihood of hitting at all distances (Tab.1, line А-545 “П 0,3” / АК-74 ”П 0,3”), because the average probability of hitting the entire range of a direct shot compared to the mark “4” will increase significantly: 1,48 times on A-545 and AK-12 and 1,31 times on AK-74 (Tab.1, average).

Compared to the current state of affairs - with the label “4” on AK-74 - the label “P 0,3” on А-545 and АК-12 will increase the probability of hitting 1,56 times on average (Tab.1, average).

AH-94 with the label "P 0,3" would have a chance of hitting the first two bullets significantly better than A-545. However, on the AH-94 they installed an aperture sight on the M-16, which not only does not contribute to aiming at the lower edge of the target with a direct shot, it also does not have at least the “3” mark. Unsuccessful sights - this is the reason for the lack of demand for the AN-94.

A non-discrete passive sight is more effective than a direct shot.

The definition of accurate shooting is best formulated in the monograph of the Central Research Institute of Information "The effectiveness of automatic firing weapons":" 3.5. The degree of combining the midpoint of hits with the center of the target determines the accuracy of shooting.»[1, page 121].

With a direct shot, the STP moves along the target from the lower edge of the target (at the direct shot range) to the upper edge (approximately ½ of the direct shot range) and back to the lower edge (closer to 50м), and only in two places from the entire range of the direct shot coincides with the center of the target is approximately ¼ and ¾ of the direct shot. At a range of a direct shot and approximately ½ of that range, at least half of all bullets go below or above the target, respectively. Choosing a direct shot, we deliberately go on reducing the accuracy of shooting for the sake of simplicity and speed of aiming.

In Russia, a non-discrete passive sight has been patented, which makes it possible to aim at a target “person” as simply and as quickly as with a direct shot. At the same time, the sight at sufficiently long ranges keeps the STP close to the center of real targets in battle.

A non-discrete passive sight on the A-545 and AK-12 will increase the probability of getting 1,19 times, on average, compared to the “P 0,3” mark, and also increase the effective range of the fire by 150-200. And this sight is passive, that is, it does not radiate any electromagnetic impulse (laser, etc.), therefore it does not warn the target because it is aimed at it, and it does not unmask its arrow [5].

There are no objective obstacles to the introduction of the “P 0,3” tag and non-discrete passive sight.

The introduction of the “P 0,3” tag does not require changes in the shooting methods memorized by machine gunners, requires minor changes in the manuals for machine guns and in the shooting course, as well as completely minor changes in the equipment of the shooting ranges (chest targets should be cut to the height of the head targets), does not require experimental design works (OCD). Some types of sights available in the troops, for example, collimator sights will not require any modernization: they will simply have to lead to normal combat with a slightly lower STF excess at 100m’s distance than is being done now.

The introduction of a nondiscrete passive sight will require OCD, as well as some retraining of machine gunners. But for OCD, the technologies and materials available in optical instrument making are sufficient, and the price of the sight will be no higher than the price of current optical and night sights for automata. The use of a non-discrete passive sight is intuitive and its development will not be a problem for any category of military personnel, including draftees.

Now, when it is necessary to replace sights with the tag “4”, it’s time to put a non-discrete passive sight into supply, otherwise our troops will remain only with an obviously insufficiently accurate direct shot for several decades.

Conclusions and offers

A direct shot labeled “P 0,3” or a non-discrete passive sight will increase the combat effectiveness of both the assault rifles and those with improved accuracy and undergoing state tests.

Without these sights, it’s pointless to put into service automatic rifles with improved accuracy, as their combat effectiveness with old sights is no better than the automatic rifles already in service.

Implementing scopes labeled “P 0,3” and / or non-discrete passive sights is a priority and no alternative. In the case of a lack of funds at the same time for new sights and new machines it is necessary to introduce new sights, and not new machines.

References
[1] Effectiveness of firing from automatic weapons / MS Shereshevsky, AN Gontarev, Yu.V. Minayev Moscow, Central Research Institute of Information, 1979.
[2] The 5,45-mm Kalashnikov assault rifle (AK-74, AX74, AK-74H, AX74H) and 5,45-Kalashnikov machine gun (RPK74, РПКСXNNXX, RPK74HNHX, NXXUMNX74X, NPC74H, NXXUMNX1982X, NXXNUMXH Kalashnikov assault rifle) Uch.-ed., XNUMX.
[3] M5.56A16 and M1A16 rifles, FM 2-23, 9 JULY 3 Manual
[4] The submachine gun should and can hit the head figure / V. Svateev. Bulletin of AVN. No.2. 2013.
[5] Pros and cons of the sight. Small arms need an active-passive sight / Svatyev V.A. Journal of the Publishing Center of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation "Army collection". No.12 (234). 2013.
Author:
253 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 12 May 2016 06: 32
    +6
    Great article +.
    1. qwert
      qwert 12 May 2016 07: 33
      +13
      "A-545 and AK-12 with modern sights (marked with" 4 ") will have no better combat effectiveness than the AK-74."
      I don’t know how AK-74, but AKM accuracy and sights are quite normal. Trying to make a sniper rifle from a machine gun is from the crafty one. When the cat has nothing to do, he ...
      1. Jack-b
        Jack-b 12 May 2016 08: 14
        +24
        The question here is not a sniper rifle, but a hit rate. Either you put one enemy in 10 "shots", or three. There is a difference.
        And about the AK-74 just about that we are talking, that it is not worse than modern ones if they are not supplied with "normal" sights. Because modern sights lack the necessary aiming parameters. And therefore, replacing machines with new ones does not make sense - a waste of money. If these parameters are implemented, then the machines will be better and then it makes sense to spend money.
        1. gringo
          gringo 12 May 2016 10: 02
          +3
          no worse if you clamp it in a vice. the meaning of the new ones is that they have a bunch of unstable positions (on the run, just from a standing position) higher significantly.
          1. crazyrom
            crazyrom 14 May 2016 20: 50
            0
            It's not at all clear what the problem is. Since the mark is not there, you just need to twist the sight down and that's it. Or just tell the soldiers "tag below". Well, it is desirable to produce new ones already with the correct marks for new weapons.
            1. Svateev
              15 May 2016 08: 06
              0
              Quote: crazyrom
              Since the mark is not there, you just need to turn the scope down and that's it.

              Here's how to "tweak" each type of scopes already in the army and will be explained in the next article. And in this speech about:
              Quote: crazyrom
              New to produce already with the correct labels.

              This is what is being proposed. And you started your comment as if you were arguing with that.
              Quote: crazyrom
              under a new weapon.

              And not only for the new, but also the old rifles with new sights are more effective.
              1. MilaV
                MilaV 3 October 2018 12: 06
                0
                They WILL ACCEPT ONLY YOUR STATEMENT / CONFIRMATION SENT BY YOU BY E-MAIL TO THE LEF. m. s. No. 273 [email protected], or you can send an application directly by visiting their website m. lef. No. 273 [email protected]
        2. yehat
          yehat 12 May 2016 14: 19
          +2
          nevertheless, it’s wrong to draw conclusions to reduce targets to the conclusion that new rifles are unnecessary without new sights.
          the same AEK has a completely parallel advantage - reduced scatter escalation when firing a burst and it works with any sights.
          Finally, I know, I’m not special on Kalash, but who prevents the introduction of amendments when shooting?
          Well, let the scope down, fired a couple of bullets in the wrong direction, orientated on the tracers, retargeted, adjusted for the bullets to leave, and that’s all.
          1. Svateev
            12 May 2016 21: 00
            +2
            Quote: yehat
            the same AEK has a completely parallel advantage - reduced scatter escalation when firing a burst and it works with any sights.

            Why, the article is talking about the improved accuracy of the new machines! This is not a "parallel" advantage, but just discussed in the article. And it is shown that it does not work with old scopes - it does not increase the hit probability.
            1. yehat
              yehat 13 May 2016 16: 32
              +1
              come on! in urban conditions, shooting at a vskidka is at least easier. And the infantry is not only stale.
              Besides, I don’t understand you, who shoots with a machine gun at half-kilometer dead infantry? They are stupidly not visible without optics!
              And from a short distance, where it is visible, you can shoot without a sight at all. You’ll already choose - either we shoot at what is really visible and, therefore, not far, or we use optics and throw the machine out altogether!
              I stupidly do not believe that most soldiers are weary of the desire to shoot at 50 cm. A target from 400-500 meters with a machine gun, and even a burst.
              I’m sure that only in no more than 10-15% of soldiers will their vision allow them to aim at such a distance.
          2. Dam
            Dam 13 May 2016 20: 43
            +2
            And the enemy from the trench yells: no, you need a little lower, correct yourself, I'll wait! Even a collimator will make shooting much more accurate, especially from unstable positions and aiming much faster. Optics on the machine is necessary, albeit no more than 1.5-2 times, as simple as possible, but necessary.
      2. Svateev
        12 May 2016 12: 28
        +15
        Quote: qwert
        I don’t know how AK-74, but AKM accuracy and sights are quite normal

        You are right. For AK and AKM, the excess over the head figure is less and therefore their combat effectiveness is higher. Now I am preparing an article, there it will be shown.
        Quote: qwert
        Trying to make a sniper rifle from a machine gun is from the crafty one.

        And not even what can be done to improve the shooting of an assault rifle is not lazy.
        Quote: qwert
        When the cat has nothing to do, he ...

        He writes silly posts on clever articles. :))
        1. jjj
          jjj 12 May 2016 12: 44
          0
          The assault rifle is not designed for the tasks that the rifle performs. He is for close combat. In such a battle, you need a XNUMX% reliable machine gun that scatters a burst within certain limits so as not to aim at the enemy for a long time. There are other weapons for shooting the cap. And the problem is that it is not used very much in conventional troops.
          1. Svateev
            12 May 2016 13: 50
            +8
            Quote: jjj
            There is another weapon for shooting the cap.

            1) In battle, the lying infantry - namely, "caps" - the shooter behind the breastwork (head figures).
            2) Breast targets - the shooter out of the blue with elbows without a parapet in battle is almost non-existent.
            3) The machine gun can effectively hit "caps", but for some reason it is optimized for shooting at chest targets.
            4) Another weapon for the "caps" in the compartment is one barrel - SVD. One sniper cannot cope with an enemy squad.
            The question is: why not optimize the sight of the machine for the "caps" instead of the current breast?
            Quote: jjj
            In such a battle, you need a completely reliable machine,

            And the sight "P 0,3" will in no way worsen the reliability of the machine.
            Quote: jjj
            a line scattering within certain limits so as not to heal the enemy for a long time.

            If you are not sure that you have aimed exactly, then you can scatter yourself by moving the barrel during the turn. This is recommended when shooting at a moving target. But if the assault rifle scatters strongly, then it is impossible to reduce the dispersion, and when firing at a stationary target, even aiming accurately, you cannot hit. Therefore, the heap machine is certainly better than the scatter one. But as his colleague Lopatov accurately formulated below, "the advantage of accuracy still needs to be realized." This is what the article is about.
            1. yehat
              yehat 12 May 2016 14: 21
              -1
              and the grenade launcher on caps does not channel? Or is it made of cap-resistant materials?
              1. Assistant
                Assistant 12 May 2016 23: 48
                0
                And the grenade launcher has already been put into the standard equipment of the machine (an open sight, it seems, in it even from the design prototypes)?
                And every conscript combatant taught to shoot from the grenade launcher?
                And the number of shots for the grenade launcher in the ammunition is at least comparable (the difference is not less than 10 times) with the number of rounds in it?
          2. Chiropractor
            Chiropractor 12 May 2016 14: 03
            0
            Quote: jjj
            The machine is not intended for the tasks that the rifle performs. He is for close combat.


            Let me disagree!
            For close combat - PP. If you choose a weapon for the army, then keep in mind that it is usually in a cordon. Well, either with armor it moves somewhere, or it digs in. Those. in any case 400-600 m is the most "used" distance for her.
            Do you want to gain accuracy at close distances with "shovels"? Put the mark P 0,2.
            Do you want to open the premises with "shovels"? I do not advise.....
            1. jjj
              jjj 12 May 2016 19: 20
              +1
              Quote: Kostoprav
              in any case 400-600 m is the most "used" distance for her.

              If at such a distance the fighter hits the target - he is almost a sniper
        2. Igor39
          Igor39 12 May 2016 15: 24
          0
          Viktor Alekseevich, why are you saying that AKM has less head over head? It has a steeper trajectory at all distances in comparison with AK 74 almost twice, if for 500 meters with AKM with P 0,5 + 130, then on AK74 +70 in total.
          1. Svateev
            12 May 2016 18: 13
            0
            Quote: Igor39
            why do you say that AKM has less head over head?

            Because for AKM and AK, the "P" mark corresponds to 300m, and the trajectory "3" has a height of 34cm, that is, 4cm higher than the head target. And in the AK74, the trajectory "4" has a height of 0,4 m, that is, 10 cm higher than the head, and the trajectory "P" is 0,5 m, that is, 20 cm higher than the head.
            1. Igor39
              Igor39 12 May 2016 21: 38
              +1
              I reviewed the tables, on AK74 by P or 0,4, an excess of 38 cm, 4 cm more than AKM by 0,3, I think this is insignificant and AK74 by any means has a flatter trajectory at all distances and better stability when shooting short than AKM .
              1. Svateev
                12 May 2016 21: 56
                0
                Quote: Igor39
                AK74 has a flatter trajectory at all distances

                Of course, the AK74 has more flat trajectories than AK and AKM. But here you have
                Quote: Igor39
                by P or 0,4 excess 38 cm, by 4 cm more than AKM by 0,3

                I do not understand anything.
                For this question, you should not look at the table of excess trajectories over the aiming line, but the main table, more specifically - the column "trajectory height". We find the trajectory "4" AK74 there at once, the height is 0,4m (40cm). To determine the "P" look at the manual (manual) for the corresponding machine gun: for AK and AKM it is indicated that "P" corresponds to a range of 300 m; again, open the "main table" AKM or AK and find that the height of the trajectory "3" is 0,34m. For the AK74 it is indicated that this is the range of a direct shot at the chest target, and since the chest target has a height of 0,5 m, the same is the height of the "P" trajectory of the AK74.
    2. CHILD
      CHILD 13 May 2016 14: 02
      0
      the author is right .... 3 .... to the growth ... aiming point of the knee to the waist ...
  2. brelok
    brelok 12 May 2016 06: 48
    +8
    Apparently I grabbed clever words! I am forty, but still three bullets with ak-74 from 100 meters put at least two in the top ten. Believe me, this will not work from a bad trunk. I am a hunter with 20 years of experience, I shot at different levels from different Kalash systems! Who shoots worse, the answer is simple: hands do not grow in place. And what kind of body kit do not freak ak anyway yay .... they will interfere! Practice and practice again. My minus.
    1. Dimon19661
      Dimon19661 12 May 2016 07: 01
      +35
      You are talking about the hands of conscript soldiers, a hunter with 20 years of experience. Your analysis of the sights for your man brought their combat use, and not a discussion about who shoots harder.
      1. zadorin1974
        zadorin1974 12 May 2016 07: 54
        +46
        Dimon, and you probably didn’t understand what Nikolay wanted to say. There will be no practice in shooting, so screw the gold sight at least. If you figure it out, we lose to the States in the initial shooting training. You need to return to the NVP schools and shooting ranges and shooting sections .
        1. Volga Cossack
          Volga Cossack 12 May 2016 08: 40
          +6
          exactly!!! totally agree !!!! Well, AN ALL THE SAME for the pros, not for conscripts ... complicated and expensive ....... the story will be with SVT ..... The Marines were loved - the pehturs - terry, with all due respect, was capricious .... .
        2. Hell's Angel
          Hell's Angel 12 May 2016 10: 16
          +6
          C PSP problem is acute! It would not be bad to slightly change the methodology of fire training in the armed forces. But there is a problem. Number - in l / s in the motor-shooting company and, for example, in the main force of any power structure. Working with each individually is very difficult, and without it it is difficult to teach the shooter more or less acceptable. Well, there is a problem with those who will teach. They are mostly themselves
          do not know much because In VU, training takes place in the old fashioned way, with rare exceptions which nevertheless takes place. But all this rests on personal initiative.
        3. DimerVladimer
          DimerVladimer 12 May 2016 10: 25
          +11
          I agree - NVP is necessary.
          Tiers and weapons culture training are needed.
          At one time, I was lucky with an NVP mentor and I spent evenings on a school dash, shooting 100-300 rounds per evening. Accordingly, the category of shooting, competition, etc.
          Therefore, in the army, it was not difficult for me to calculate the trajectory and, for example, "hang" bullets from an AKM / AK-74 through a hillock at a barely visible target.
          Unfortunately, in the platoon, hardly a third fit into the norm.

          The country needs mass movement and training in shooting, mass production of bullet weapons from small-caliber to benchrest, high-quality cartridges. This is the basis of the country's security.
          1. brn521
            brn521 12 May 2016 11: 07
            +4
            Quote: DimerVladimer
            The country needs mass movement and training in shooting, mass production of bullet weapons from small-caliber to benchrest, high-quality cartridges. This is the basis of the country's security.

            Then the mass movement of young sappers and bomb technicians is better :). If we are talking about real combat effectiveness in a superior enemy.
            1. 72jora72
              72jora72 12 May 2016 13: 00
              0
              Then the mass movement of young sappers and bomb technicians is better :). If we are talking about real combat effectiveness in a superior enemy.
              And why not ............. in Soviet times, and such circles were
            2. 72jora72
              72jora72 12 May 2016 13: 00
              0
              Then the mass movement of young sappers and bomb technicians is better :). If we are talking about real combat effectiveness in a superior enemy.
              And why not ............. in Soviet times, and such circles were
              1. brn521
                brn521 12 May 2016 15: 02
                +2
                Quote: 72jora72
                And why not ............. in Soviet times, and such circles were

                I only have information on forced measures. For example, the clearing of the terrain, recaptured from the enemy in the Second World War in 44-46, was often carried out by teenagers-sappers 15-17 years old, who underwent an accelerated training course in OSOAVIAHIM and worked under the supervision of a senior.
                But I'm talking about something else: mining the terrain, calculating charges, damage zones, the ability to use improvised means. Strategic defense stockpiles of explosives dispersed throughout the territory. Horror for any adversary ... And for law enforcement agencies too. But the defense potential increases tenfold.
                Now what do we have? Well put a grenade on a stretch. Perhaps we will master the fuse to remake it for instant operation. As an apotheosis, dusty from antiquity, the MONK received from a warehouse with a demand then will certainly be returned. Yes, and it will certainly work out of time or drive almost the entire charge of the fragments somewhere in the clouds or the earth. In general, nothing serious.
            3. Svidetel 45
              Svidetel 45 14 May 2016 01: 19
              +1
              And that would not hurt.
          2. zadorin1974
            zadorin1974 12 May 2016 11: 15
            +6
            Yes, the Soviet era is remembered with bitterness, we lost a lot. At our school, the shooting range never stopped. The military officer closed poorly firing shots in the evening, shoot two packs of small things (then cleaned the lead with lead). Yes, and anyone who wanted to come could just come Shoot once a week. In our same shooting range, the Police shot back, so they asked him to slam a couple of times from PM.Zarnitsa twice a year. Americans with a rifle gun are even easier. In every house there are rifled bolts and semiautomatic machines. I wanted to go to the club , and I ran into a rental car (if I don’t have one) and it’s all on a budget. We have a short cut for a simple citizen (not a hunter, not a service person; I’m silent about children) is the Kalashnikov Museum in Izhevsk. You just have to buy a ticket in dash for every shot in gold.
          3. DMB_95
            DMB_95 12 May 2016 11: 33
            +5
            As for the revival of a full-fledged CWP - to the point. I also shot at school no less than a "box" of cartridges from a "small" and by the age of 16 had a discharge. In addition to shooting, we studied gas masks, radiation and chemical protection, drill, dug trenches. After school we were almost able to fight no worse than the current conscripts who had served half a year. And there was enough time for other sciences.
            1. AlexSam
              AlexSam 12 May 2016 13: 59
              +2
              famously! I even envied) I love to shoot from early childhood, I constantly dragged my father to shoot at the shooting range from the air)) and I was able to shoot at the NVP only once after the 9th (it seems) class at the training camp ... they gave me an AK-74 and already three! cartridge (((
              and the training took place at the Yavorov landfill, where now the p * Ndossky superhuman is preparing from the moron horses-horses of the Texas rangers)))
          4. max702
            max702 12 May 2016 11: 38
            +4
            Quote: DimerVladimer
            The country needs mass movement and shooting training,

            Have you watched the film "Voroshilovsky Shooter"? So think, do the country's authorities need millions of "Voroshilov shooters"? This is where the legs of unwillingness to create a shooting culture in the country grow .. For it is fraught ..
            pc: In the United States, I would gladly cancel the 2nd amendment, but things have gone too far, and you have to take into account a lot of factors and opinions, but work is being done in this direction, all these reports about mass executions, psychopaths with guns and others are just the water in this mill ..
            1. Dillinjer
              Dillinjer 12 May 2016 13: 08
              +3
              You know that before the establishment of Soviet power, it was possible to freely buy any barrel in Tsarist Russia ... But the revolutionaries began to massively seize weapons and set a ban on sales in order to avoid peasant riots. Well, think about who is easier to reason: a peasant with a pitchfork or a revolver? Any power feels safer if the people do not have weapons. The authorities feel that these people are like slaves. And if there are guns with which power will be swept away, if it will plunder the country, then it is as if more regions should give sovereignty and listen to the opinion of the people. Nobody needs people who can protect their interests with weapons ... But unfortunately, we are the people who are not given the right to protect themselves, their lives and their loved ones with weapons.
              1. zadorin1974
                zadorin1974 12 May 2016 13: 18
                0
                Dillinjer. Is it hard in a village without a sawn-off shot? Well, why do you have a serious conversation that always flashes to the level you’re the boss, you’re not smart (admins, well, du - r is a normal word)? Skulls do not give rest? request
                1. Dillinjer
                  Dillinjer 12 May 2016 22: 10
                  +3
                  And because it is painful, with US citizenship, I can freely purchase AK-47, one of the symbols of the Russian nation and Russia, and in my own country they forbid me to do this.
              2. Fox
                Fox 12 May 2016 20: 38
                +2
                Quote: Dillinjer
                You know that before the establishment of Soviet power, in Tsar’s

                Do you know that under the Soviet regime it was possible to buy a gun in a hardware store back in the 50s?
                1. Dillinjer
                  Dillinjer 12 May 2016 22: 07
                  +1
                  You won’t believe it, I know, but compare the arsenal which at that time was possible in America and ours. And at the moment it has become quite tough.
                2. Dillinjer
                  Dillinjer 12 May 2016 22: 30
                  +1
                  It's just that I'm sorry that we don't have the right to own weapons, I think you would also want to buy some kind of "gun". Well, at least I have a hunting rifle, and that's good)
            2. Aleksey_K
              Aleksey_K 12 May 2016 13: 08
              +7
              Quote: max702
              Have you watched the film "Voroshilovsky Shooter"? So think, do the country's authorities need millions of "Voroshilov shooters"? This is where the legs of unwillingness to create a shooting culture in the country grow ..

              Don't touch the film. And the culture of the rifle has nothing to do with it. If the "old man-Ulyanov" wanted to, he could kill everyone with a simple kitchen knife, and not bother with the criminal purchase of a "whip" for $ 5000. He just watched in a poorly populated place, stuck his knife and walked on. This is an invention of the director from the despair of the time when the only means of revenge was lynching. And then a bright plot was born.
              Now in the country there are landing troops, and marines and internal, in which conscripts serve, where they teach soldiers to fight at a level above the average. And there are a lot of them, the former of these soldiers, from Soviet times. Something I did not notice any state bothering about them. A non-armed people (even if he would have served in the elite troops) never poses a danger.
              For the state, another thing is worse - a conspiracy and a military coup with the help of the armed forces. In Russia, Yeltsin had already tested an armed coup when he was declared removed from power. It was he who organized the shelling of tanks, representatives of the legitimate authorities (Supreme Council). Even the GKChP did not want such a development. And this one from a kulak family from the Urals - please, overthrew the legitimate authority, then illegally violating the current constitution, ruined the Soviet Union.
            3. Svidetel 45
              Svidetel 45 14 May 2016 01: 28
              +1
              You’re right, now we’ll learn to shoot in our country — an expensive pleasure, in Soviet times, we easily went to the shooting gallery at the institute, studied in the section, from a small rifle, then switched to Margolin’s sports pistol, and they even pulled everything for free and invited. Apparently, the authorities are counting only on a cadre army, but in vain, in the case of a big uproar, a people's war, all human resources will be required, especially since the potential adversary is now many times superior to us.
              1. BARKHAN
                BARKHAN 14 May 2016 20: 09
                +1
                Quote: Svidetel 45
                in our country now learning to shoot is an expensive pleasure,

                OP-SKS-8.500-9.000rub .--- B \ U 5.000-6.000rub.
                Cartridge 7,62x39 FMJ, HP, SP-15rub
                Expensive? Lazy!
          5. yehat
            yehat 12 May 2016 14: 28
            +2
            I do not understand. To learn more or less tolerable shooting, you need 2-3 lessons from the strength
            is this really such a problem ?? Not so many tricks in shooting before 200m
            It is much more important to maintain health and normal vision, so that later the department does not consist entirely of blind goblins with flat feet, gastritis, dystrophy and IQ less than 50.
            1. Svateev
              12 May 2016 14: 48
              +1
              Quote: yehat
              To learn more or less tolerable shooting, you need from the strength of the 2-3 lesson
              is this really such a problem ?? Not so many tricks in shooting before 200m

              Indeed, it takes a little time to learn a direct shot. Therefore, it is considered the main for the machine gunner.
              But it is necessary that the machine gunner hit all targets in a battle with a direct shot, and his immediate opponent — the shooter behind the parapet. That's about that article.
          6. lelikas
            lelikas 12 May 2016 16: 06
            +4
            Quote: DimerVladimer
            The country needs mass movement and training in shooting, mass production of bullet weapons from small-caliber to benchrest, high-quality cartridges. This is the basis of the country's security.

            With all the correctness of your words, but not in our country, where any weapon, in private hands, is first seen as a threat to the authorities, then as a threat to the lives of citizens and only last but not least as a subject of hunting, self-defense or sport.
        4. brn521
          brn521 12 May 2016 10: 59
          +7
          Quote: zadorin1974
          There will be no practice in shooting, so at least screw the golden sight.

          Why gold? We take two "teapots". We issue a Kalash to one without a body kit, with an open sight. Another - with a collimator sight. Let's see the difference. And also remember, using the example of the Second World War, that when it smells of fried, no one will teach anyone anything. Not before.
          1. Hell's Angel
            Hell's Angel 12 May 2016 11: 53
            +6
            The difference will be approximately 30%. And in a combat situation - this is a BIG DIFFERENCE!
          2. zadorin1974
            zadorin1974 12 May 2016 11: 53
            +2
            brn521. You don’t have to make a panacea from the collimator. Firstly, it’s very expensive, secondly it helps to a maximum of three hundred, then the point begins to block the target. Running in a dense forest and shrubbery with a collimator is still a pleasure. So it’s easier to make a confident user from the kettle cheaper and more practical.
            1. jjj
              jjj 12 May 2016 12: 46
              +1
              And he closes almost the entire review
            2. brn521
              brn521 12 May 2016 13: 52
              +4
              Quote: zadorin1974
              So, it’s easier to make a confident user from a kettle cheaper and more practical.

              Make it not so simple. Polygon + instructors. Ammo and barrel life. And yet, what is often forgotten, is the time of the trainees themselves for training and retraining. I have a strong suspicion that the total cost per person will significantly exceed the cost of the sight. When it comes to mobilization volumes, there is something to think about and what to compare.
              Quote: zadorin1974
              secondly, it helps to a maximum of three hundred

              Well, the distance of 0-200m is almost completely hung up on the infantry. The very one that is collected at the expense of a mobilization resource, calling anyone horrible. At 300+ distances, other weapons come to the fore.
              1. zadorin1974
                zadorin1974 12 May 2016 14: 33
                +3
                brn521.With modern technologies, this is not so unprofitable. I dabbled in both an interactive dash and dabble in a laser (in sunny weather, a direct shot up to a hundred meters), the price tag of these devices is not so big. By the way, the MO is already buying interactive shooting simulators with serious software (you can set up all the possible components — wind, rain, fog, etc.) In Japan, self-defense troops invented strikes from despair (by the way, for storming tactics and squatting of squads, this is generally a wonderful thing). At the expense of collimators, it's a matter of habit, you need to get used to working with two eyes, otherwise it will only interfere. Moreover, it is better to install the collimator on the fins, and it is not necessary to take off quickly and shoot. You say that, taking into account the cartridges and resources of the trunks, it’s expensive. Is it cheaper to dispose of cartridges and scrap machines? Polygons and instructors (especially platoon, company, etc. commanders) must justify the money that the state invested in them, they should study at the training grounds, and officers should train their subordinates x. Sight for a fighter is an assistant, not a substitute.
                1. BARKHAN
                  BARKHAN 14 May 2016 20: 25
                  +1
                  To the author. And is there any evidence of shooting new weapons with examples of optical sights you have given? Practical results at different distances. Or is it just theoretical calculations?
                  1. Svateev
                    15 May 2016 08: 27
                    +1
                    Quote: Barkhan
                    And is there any data on the shooting of new weapons with the examples of optical sights you have given?

                    I do not have data on new samples, and there is not even information that new samples were checked for the main purpose.
                    In general, I must say that from many years of communication with the responsible authorities - the 3 Institute of the Ministry of Defense, GRAU, TSNIITOCHMASH, the Main Command of the Ground Forces - I realized that they understand this mistake of the 1974 of the year, but no one wants to take the responsibility to fix it. BUT inaction with us is not punishable, and so they send to each other:
                    GRAU: - let TSNIITOCHMASH give an opinion.
                    TSNIITOCHMASH: Yes, the sentences make sense, but AT THE SHOOTING ROOMS, machine gunners shoot at chest targets and hit the "P", why should we fence in the garden? Now, if the Ministry of Defense changes the course of firing, then ... And so we already checked with firing, they hit the BREAST!
                    GRAU: let the author provide the results of firing tests for the main target ...
                    Author: I would provide if I were not in stock now! Neighboring motorized rifle brigade, carry out firing?
                    Neighboring team: We agree with your proposals ... (after a pause) But you will send these results to the Ministry of Defense ?!
                    Author: of course I will, for that we need to carry out firing.
                    Neighboring brigade: You know, then the results will have more weight if we are ordered to conduct these shootings. Here, get us ordered ...
                    And so is 3 of the year.
              2. BARKHAN
                BARKHAN 14 May 2016 20: 21
                +2
                Quote: brn521
                Make it not so simple. Polygon + instructors. Ammo and barrel life. And yet, what is often forgotten, is the time of the trainees themselves for training and retraining. I have a strong suspicion that the total cost per person will significantly exceed the cost of the sight.

                I can assure you that without numerous trainings, no optics will help, and multiple optics will also interfere, as with optics, "inserting" (holding) into a weapon is different. Any change in grip, shoulder rest, the location of the support system will negatively affect on accuracy. And do not forget the farther the shot, the greater the natural dispersion of the bullet. That is, even with targeted optics, shooting from a machine gun at 400 meters at the "caps" of the lottery.
                Nothing but practice, even with excellent weapons and body kits, will help. It's like driving a car. You can walk around it as much as you like, but only driving experience, bringing reflexes to automatism.
                Hunting, by the way, helps a lot to learn how to shoot. There is excitement and interest. However, someone entertains a piece of paper.
                1. Svateev
                  15 May 2016 08: 33
                  0
                  Quote: Barkhan
                  Nothing but practice, even with excellent weapons and body kits, will help.

                  Certainly. But practice without an accurate sight is of little use: with modern sights, only a few submachine gunners will "grope" the necessary corrections at the required ranges, but all submachine gunners need to improve their efficiency.
                  1. BARKHAN
                    BARKHAN 15 May 2016 09: 23
                    +1
                    Quote: Svateev
                    With modern sights, only a few submachine gunners will "find" the necessary corrections at the required ranges, but all submachine gunners need to improve their efficiency.

                    Forgive me for my stupidity generously. But could you please chew me in more detail? What is the problem with modern scopes? I still have access only to hunting. After all, you can shoot at "0" at any working distance, 200-300m. Well, and the rest 100-150-250-350-400m memorize the "hemp" position on the shooting range ... And work by moving the aiming point.
                    Indeed, when the magnification of the sight is below 4 and the average quality of vision for fighters, the removal of the aiming point is visually minimal. And simpler than working with the flywheels.
                    And please in more detail what sights are needed.
      2. gringo
        gringo 12 May 2016 10: 03
        -1
        who argues that with a sight it’s better than without the current, the machines given in the article have nothing to do with it.
        1. Svateev
          12 May 2016 11: 34
          0
          Quote: gringo
          current machines given in the article have nothing to do with it.

          Calm down, lobbyist of the new machines. This article is about sights, not about guns.
          1. gringo
            gringo 12 May 2016 12: 36
            +1
            maybe a lobbyist but the machine itself is a thing. and not as in the article is useless without new sights, IMHO nonsense. and speech in an article about automatic weapons, this is a discussion on sights
            1. Svateev
              12 May 2016 13: 59
              +3
              Quote: gringo
              and not as in the article is useless without new sights, IMHO nonsense.

              Unfortunately, new machines without correcting sights are no better than those already in stock. Therefore, spending money on new machines without new sights is a waste of time and money.
      3. goose
        goose 12 May 2016 10: 09
        0
        Yeah, even the first shot from a machine gun on the machine and with optics smeared. Hands are really crooked.
      4. serega.fedotov
        serega.fedotov 13 May 2016 21: 05
        0
        Quote: Dimon19661
        You are talking about the hands of conscript soldiers, a hunter with 20 years of experience. Your analysis of the sights for your man brought their combat use, and not a discussion about who shoots harder.

        For example, I only used the sight on the training ground! This is not bragging, just in the park on the run, or leaning out of the shelter for a second, combine the front sight with the slot, it doesn’t work out, I’m not talking about distance adjustment at all! Really shoot "on the barrel" The collimator seems to be cooler, but really the same eggs! It seems that you can aim with two eyes and you don't need to twist anything, only the dog sticks out (if you break nafig, if you can catch on to something), and the dirt got in the wrong time and there is nothing to wipe -because he himself is head over heels in gov..e and most importantly it works really 100 meters! By the way, for a hunting smoothbore, the collimator is great - I even hung it on a horizontal line!
        And the numbers of the graphics are of course good only "it was smooth on paper" For example, a small recoil is more important to me and so that the barrel does not go away!
        1. Svateev
          15 May 2016 08: 45
          0
          Quote: serega.fedotov
          Really shoot "the barrel"

          I do not propose to cancel the offhand shooting! Himself when he commanded a company and could shoot at his own discretion, offhand ("from the belly") the first burst hit the chest at 100m.
          But the more often you use the scope, the more accurately and further you get. It is necessary (as in that joke) to force yourself to use the scope!
      5. Svidetel 45
        Svidetel 45 14 May 2016 01: 17
        +1
        Analysis is good, but the bulk of the fighters will fight and shoot in battle without any analysis, and as a rule in mobile combat there will be no time for analysis, they shoot most often at a distance of real effective machine gun fire of 150-200 meters, often just offhand, aiming along the trunk, and therefore the main thing is reliability and acceptable accuracy for defeating the growth and thoracic targets at the above mentioned distances, but the capabilities of the AN-94 can be fully used only by professionals of special forces.
        1. Svateev
          15 May 2016 08: 59
          +1
          Quote: Svidetel 45
          the bulk of the fighters will fight and shoot in battle without any analysis,

          Your words to the head of the General Staff of the Ground Forces are in the ears! And then he answered me: "The basics of ballistics and shooting rules are explained to machine gunners in the classroom, and in practical shooting, the soldier himself chooses the sight and aiming point." That is, the NSh GSh SV invites each submachine gunner to carry out the analysis that I - an officer who graduated from a higher military school, served, commanded subunits - was able to do only when I went to the reserve! And I spent more than one year on this, because this article is not the first on this topic.
          Of course, in battle, the sight and aiming method should be as simple and intuitive as possible, there is no time to analyze. Therefore, I am against comments like "Let the submachine gunner take lower (how much lower? At what lower ranges? How to determine the submachine gunner's ranges?)" Or such "And that's why there is a commander who will tell you what sight to place and where to aim."
          Therefore, I am for a direct shot (always aiming at the lower edge of the target (under the lower edge)) - and that's all. But a direct shot must count on the lowest target in the battle, and this is the main goal, but not the chest one.
    2. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 12 May 2016 08: 09
      +10
      And if I served years ago, I still didn’t have it after practice? But I know how to use the scope and have a developed eye, it would be much easier for me to shoot with an infantry mark of 0,3 at the infantry behind the parapet, so part of the author is right, especially considering that in case of mobilization of such as I will be the vast majority.
      1. brn521
        brn521 12 May 2016 11: 18
        +2
        Quote: cth; fyn
        But I know how to use the scope and have a developed eye

        Quote: cth; fyn
        in case of mobilization such as I will be the vast majority.

        As for the developed eye meter, the vast majority of those mobilized are too optimistic.
        1. jjj
          jjj 12 May 2016 12: 48
          +2
          Quote: brn521
          As for the developed eye meter, the vast majority of those mobilized are too optimistic.

          Do not believe me, in a combat situation somehow appears suddenly. And observation, and accuracy of hits. Although it looks like mysticism
          1. Svateev
            12 May 2016 14: 03
            0
            Quote: jjj
            in a combat situation somehow appears suddenly.

            Better study before a combat situation. In battle, it will "appear", or rather remember only what was learned before the battle. No "otherworldly experience" will come to you in battle.
    3. Svateev
      12 May 2016 18: 15
      0
      Quote: brelok
      three bullets with ak-74 from 100 meters put a minimum of two in the top ten.

      What mark and where to aim? And for what target?
      1. brelok
        brelok 13 May 2016 05: 37
        0
        Standard dear!
  3. bunta
    bunta 12 May 2016 07: 04
    +10
    Questions to the author to the author:
    On what basis do you say that the accuracy of the AK-12 is better than the AK-74? Have you seen the test results?
    Specify for which single or automatic fire the best accuracy is obtained one and a half, or even more so twice? For what conditions - standing, standing from the stop, lying or lying down from the stop?
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 12 May 2016 07: 54
      +3
      Good questions in the topic. We are waiting for the reaction.
    2. Svateev
      12 May 2016 08: 53
      +10
      Answers of the author:
      Quote: bunta
      On what basis do you say that the accuracy of the AK-12 is better than the AK-74? Have you seen the test results?

      There are many interviews in the media with the relevant heads of the Ministry of Defense and the heads of the Kalashnikov Concern responsible for this business. It has long been known about AEK971, and it was developed for this. Do you have other data ?!
      Quote: bunta
      for which single or automatic fire did you get the best accuracy of one and a half, or even more so twice?

      Since I do not have accurate data on the median deviation of dispersion (I would like to know who has them), the calculation is made on the assumption that the accuracy of both the first bullets (single fire) and the subsequent bullets of the queue is better. From the supine position with an emphasis on the 3 cartridge queue, the best arrows.
      The other day I got the answer to this calculation from the Concern "Kalashnikov": "Based on the results of this calculation, we can conclude that in the specified range of ranges, the probability of hitting the target N5 from the AK-74 assault rifle with the" P 0,3 "sight is higher than with the" P "sight." Signatures - chief designer, deputy. chief designer for science. There are no complaints about the calculation and applied accuracy indicators.
      True, there is also no confirmation that assault rifles without new sights are meaningless. And who will chop the branch on which he sits ...
      1. bunta
        bunta 12 May 2016 09: 13
        +7
        Quote: Svateev
        There are many interviews in the media with the relevant heads of the Ministry of Defense and the heads of the Kalashnikov Concern responsible for this business.


        Sorry, but at one time there was so much nonsense from these "responsible" interviews that I don't even want to mention it. I have always believed and will only believe in references to documents or testimonies of at least two people.
        Explain to me as a techie, due to which the accuracy (of all types of shooting) of the AK-12 can be better than the AK-74? Normal technical language. I understand why the accuracy of automatic machines with balanced automation will be better with automatic shooting without emphasis. But why the accuracy of AK-12 is better than the accuracy of AK-74 I do not understand. Just do not speak the language of representatives of Moscow Region and PR specialists from the concern, who understand weapons in arms like piglets in pineapples. Any mention of layouts and recalculations is an empty phrase for me.
        By the way, I consider your work to be quite normal from a theoretical point of view. But, if you do such calculations, then why increase the entropy wink in the question of the superiority of AK-12 over AK-74?
        1. Svateev
          12 May 2016 10: 01
          +5
          Quote: bunta
          But why the accuracy of AK-12 is better than the accuracy of AK-74 I do not understand.

          Doubts are justified. But the responsible gentlemen say that the AK12 has improved accuracy. Now he went to the troops to test and verify these allegations ...
          Officers in active service, respond! I will provide a technique for checking this.
          1. uskrabut
            uskrabut 12 May 2016 10: 29
            +1
            like on the AK-12 with the butt they were wise, the line of emphasis with the line of the barrel now coincides. From this, the trunk rises less.
            Py snu mnu not acting officer, an article on this subject came across
            1. bunta
              bunta 12 May 2016 13: 48
              +3
              Quote: uskrabut
              , the stop line with the trunk line now coincides

              this was done back in AKM
            2. Igor39
              Igor39 12 May 2016 14: 47
              +1
              The line of sight was increased on the AK 74 as well as on the AKM bar in the middle, above the barrel, and on the AK12 at the beginning there is a receiver cover.
              1. bunta
                bunta 12 May 2016 16: 36
                +2
                Quote: Igor39
                Line of sight increased


                This would make sense if the rear sight was replaced by a diopter.
                1. Igor39
                  Igor39 12 May 2016 19: 43
                  0
                  On AK 12, the combined one stands with a diopter.
          2. bunta
            bunta 12 May 2016 17: 55
            +5
            Quote: Svateev
            But the responsible gentlemen say that the AK12 has improved accuracy.


            What can they do? Where are the promised machine guns and sniper rifles "based on ak-12"? Where are the bullpups? Where is the two-tempo? Where is your own cartridge production?
            Where, finally, the testing and certification center where all tests of all world samples were to pass. Where is the joint production with Italy?
            All this was pompously promised by the concern since the time of Kuzyuk.
            The concern will not admit that this whole chatter was a chatter. And in order to preserve the PR of the person, one can also claim improved accuracy, because the test results are closed by the signature stamp and financial interests.
            It’s just that Mr. Kirisenko himself has recently not looked so smug as before and has already expressed something inarticulate to the AK-15 from the SA.
            1. Svateev
              12 May 2016 18: 30
              +2
              Quote: bunta
              test results are covered by signature stamp and financial interests.

              Moreover, they are closed not so much from a potential adversary (they tell him something at the "show") but from their literate retirees like we are on the site. That they could not criticize.
              I constantly receive answers: "We cannot report this, this is for official use, and not for strangers." I’m an outsider - a career officer, only now in reserve, but I’m dealing with issues at a level that was never dreamed of by those who are in the relevant positions!
          3. The comment was deleted.
      2. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 12 May 2016 09: 17
        +2
        But this is already interesting ... Very interesting, i.e. did they have any complaints about the calculation method? Or did they simply confirm that with the p0,3 mark the probability of defeat is higher? Could it be possible to "rip out" more accurate initial data from them?
        In general, good luck in your endeavor, it is very interesting.
  4. Igor39
    Igor39 12 May 2016 07: 04
    +5
    Then it turns out that it is more profitable to shoot, i.e. to have an exposed sight "2" - then up to 200 m you will have an excess of the trajectory only 5 cm, and 250-drop below the line of sight of the current 10 cm! I just can't imagine shooting at head targets from AK74 at a distance of 200-300 m with an open sight.
    1. Svateev
      12 May 2016 08: 57
      +4
      Quote: Igor39
      more profitable to shoot i.e. have an exposed sight "2"

      No, not more profitable. With scope "2" you can shoot with a direct shot only up to 200m. And with "P 0,3" for AK74 - to 357 at almost the same probability of hitting. And why do you want to give the enemy 157?
      1. Igor39
        Igor39 12 May 2016 10: 13
        +3
        Well, it’s better to shoot at head targets with P 0,2, you get to the aiming point 200 meters, and you’ll get -250 lower at 10, 300 -25 lower, but since shooting in short bursts the AK throws a little, then the probability of hitting more than with P 0,3, the bullets will go higher, so it’s better to ricochet than exceeding. I also painted the bar from the end with black paint, and the rear sight on the front sight red, otherwise they rub, glare. With P 0,3 at AK 350 meters -17.
        1. Svateev
          12 May 2016 11: 08
          +3
          Quote: Igor39
          so it’s better to let a rebound than an excess.

          With "P 0,3" above the head target, it will not go away, because this trajectory is NOT ABOVE this target, this is exactly how it was calculated. Therefore, it is better to shoot accurately, hit with the first burst. AND shoot specially below to see the rebound ... Do not have time to give the second - the right - turn, he will lay you first.
    2. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 12 May 2016 10: 30
      +3
      I represent.
      I and another officer in the regiment could do this :))
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Igor39
        Igor39 12 May 2016 10: 49
        +2
        This is how a person at distances looks in the PSO, but in the open sight everything is different.
      3. Svateev
        12 May 2016 11: 09
        0
        Quote: DimerVladimer
        I and another regiment officer could do this

        What is it?
  5. BIP PS FSB RF
    BIP PS FSB RF 12 May 2016 08: 03
    +5
    Horses, people mixed in a heap (M. Yu. Lermontov "Borodino")
    Talking about one thing, we draw conclusions about another. Sights, sights, accuracy and accuracy do not have to dump all this into one. And if your bullet goes above the enemy’s head, take it below.
    1. Jack-b
      Jack-b 12 May 2016 08: 18
      +5
      Do you offer tracers to hit and adjust the scope on them? The article is quite logical, be careful.
      1. BIP PS FSB RF
        BIP PS FSB RF 12 May 2016 08: 25
        +12
        What does the tracer have to do with it? I know how much the scope is set, I guess the range to the target. I know where I want to go and make a correction under the fly - a profit. Only for this we need to shoot a little more often than once every half a year and at different targets. And you also need to explain how to shoot, and not stupidly spitting out ammunition towards the targets.
        1. Svateev
          12 May 2016 09: 10
          +2
          Quote: BIP PS FSB RF
          I guess the range to the target. I know where I want to go and make amends under the spot

          1) Try to make the calculation of such a correction with the mark (sight) "P" for ranges of 150m, 250m, 350m. Note the time you need to do this and the sources of information you need to apply. 2) How will you determine these ranges in a battle with a machine gun?
          Guides for all the Kalashnikovs are not in vain recommending a direct shot: it is not necessary to measure the range, it is not necessary to rearrange the sight, just aim and shoot. For a submachine gun at short range - that’s it.
          1. BIP PS FSB RF
            BIP PS FSB RF 12 May 2016 09: 19
            0
            Answered below. It seems to me that you only shot on paper.
            1. DimerVladimer
              DimerVladimer 12 May 2016 10: 40
              +4
              Svateev means that if he came under fire, there is no time for corrections - a constant sight and adjust in fact.
              There is a difference between melee and sniping.
              1. Svateev
                12 May 2016 11: 13
                +1
                Quote: DimerVladimer
                and adjust in fact.

                Svateev means even worse: often it is not possible to adjust the fire - you cannot see where you are. Especially in the case that is described in the article - with "P" bullets go above the target. How will you see it? There is no ricochet.
                1. BIP PS FSB RF
                  BIP PS FSB RF 12 May 2016 15: 21
                  +2
                  Wow how nimble you are, Ramba fell under fire and immediately shot them all offhand with a new-fangled sight.
                  And someone taught us to leave the line of fire, assess the situation, and then act. If possible, when leaving the line of fire, make a couple of shots in the direction of the alleged enemy. Do they teach you otherwise?
        2. Jack-b
          Jack-b 12 May 2016 09: 14
          +4
          You probably reason from the point of view of a seasoned professional. And I'm from the point of view of a draftee. They said aiming at the target slice - I aim, shoot - no profit.
          1. gringo
            gringo 12 May 2016 11: 17
            0
            from the point of view of the conscript, this is normal. if the draftee is given a Kalash with a body kit, the result will not change.
        3. goose
          goose 12 May 2016 10: 13
          +1
          Quote: BIP PS FSB RF
          stupid spitting of ammunition towards the targets.

          Well, why dumb. Take 2 machine guns, zinc cartridges for the company, and so that by the evening there were no cartridges. The only problem is cleaning the trunks. 2 super-pro soldiers, the rest did NOT fire at all.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 12 May 2016 10: 34
        +7
        tracer bullet is easier - it has a slightly different trajectory and unmasks - in a combat situation is not an option
    2. Svateev
      12 May 2016 08: 59
      0
      Quote: BIP PS FSB RF
      And if your bullet goes above the enemy’s head, take it below.

      Shift aiming point? How much, at what ranges? And where do you get the time to calculate this offset?
      1. BIP PS FSB RF
        BIP PS FSB RF 12 May 2016 09: 15
        +3
        Quote: Svateev
        Shift aiming point? How much, at what ranges? And where do you get the time to calculate this offset?

        This comes with experience and practice at the shooting ranges, as well as a commander who will explain everything. After the amendments are made intuitively. Although it is possible to calculate with the help of the same aiming bar and lo and behold - then the sight can be precisely set. Yes, and if it is difficult to shoot with a constant sight, you can pre-set the scope at 100-200 (at the estimated range of fire).

        And how do you find the new risk on the aiming bar to help determine the distance to the target?
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 12 May 2016 10: 02
          +7
          Quote: BIP PS FSB RF
          This comes with experience and practice at the shooting ranges, as well as a commander who will explain everything. After the amendments are made intuitively.

          Yeah ...
          But even those who ate a flock of dogs on the determination of the range, the old Soviet artillery colonels, managed to make mistakes in the eye determination of the range. And that's why we were taught "don't believe your eyes"

          I tried to determine the range in "my" boiler, in the other one an error will necessarily creep out. It is fortunate that the "boiler" at our school was very difficult. Sometimes you look at the target - that's it, at the level of the reference point. You start shooting, but no, you are 200-300 meters closer. Features of the area.
          So we initially learned not to trust our eyeball especially ...
          1. Gray brother
            Gray brother 12 May 2016 12: 41
            +4
            Quote: Spade
            But even those who ate a flock of dogs on the determination of the range, the old Soviet artillery colonels, managed to make mistakes in the eye determination of the range. And that's why we were taught "don't believe your eyes"

            I look here alone Vasily Zaitsev gathered. lol By definition of distance, there is one topic (after all, the 21st century in the yard) - the eye can be trained without getting up from the couch or just using a smartphone.
            You open Yandex maps, find your location, select an object within sight and estimate the distance to it, and then use the "electronic ruler" function to see how much there really is.
            When I tried for the first time, I was unpleasantly surprised, I would definitely be crap in the white light like a pretty penny.
            A head target at 200 meters is generally "from the first turn" unrealistic, it’s painfully small people at such a distance (I’m looking at a dude who smokes just at that distance on the balcony), and reducing the dispersion, it seems to me, is all garbage - I proceed from the fact that, personally, I do not know of such terminators who are generally capable of holding a weapon motionless.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 12 May 2016 15: 14
              +2
              Quote: Gray Brother
              I look here alone Vasily Zaitsev gathered.

              Some people have such an illusion. Due to the fact that they learned how to correctly determine the range at one polygon, often from one place of standing.
              1. Gray brother
                Gray brother 12 May 2016 16: 40
                +1
                Quote: Spade
                . Due to the fact that they learned how to correctly determine the range at one polygon, often from one place of standing.

                Most of them didn’t go to any polygons at all, and I am one of them. And eye training is not harmful to anyone - then it will come in handy. Especially while there is a practically free option.
        2. Svateev
          12 May 2016 10: 12
          +9
          Quote: BIP PS FSB RF
          as well as a commander who will explain everything.

          So I am that commander - the company commander. So I explain in the article: a direct shot is more reliable and faster than taking an amendment. A direct shot should be sharpened for the lowest target - the arrow behind the parapet (head figure).
          Quote: BIP PS FSB RF
          After the amendments are made intuitively.

          So, you can’t calculate anything, the commander must do it for you. Then you will shoot, supposedly, intuitively. And while I shot only on paper, and you - in kind?
          Quote: BIP PS FSB RF
          you can pre-set the scope on the 100-200 (on the estimated range of fire).

          And sit waiting until the enemy at this range will be? But he, such a bastard, has the habit of dividing the squad into 2 groups: the fire group is usually at a range of 300-500m, and the maneuverable one comes from the flank and is constantly approaching. That is, the targets are at different ranges, appear briefly, and if you wait until the target appears at the range set on your sight, then you are a corpse.
  6. RuslanD36
    RuslanD36 12 May 2016 08: 16
    +1
    Why conduct automatic fire at such a distance at the head target? Sorry, but this is stupid overspending bk, and bk is not infinite
    1. Jack-b
      Jack-b 12 May 2016 08: 20
      +3
      And in this case there is no difference, but a single result will be even worse.
      1. BIP PS FSB RF
        BIP PS FSB RF 12 May 2016 08: 28
        +5
        I don’t see - I don’t shoot, I shoot solitary - the golden rule, colleagues from hot spots.
        1. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn 12 May 2016 08: 35
          +3
          And it seemed to me - you fell into everything suspicious, you’ll be more whole ... Or is this another one?
          1. zadorin1974
            zadorin1974 12 May 2016 09: 21
            +9
            So when Andrei is dragging a kilogram of 50-70 on his back and down the hill, and you’ll know that in the next week you’ll only receive hello from the radio, so you’ll see how to shoot at everything suspicious. Or do you have some kind of humor?
            1. cth; fyn
              cth; fyn 12 May 2016 09: 47
              +3
              Why, we are humorous people, the question is correct, but if you know that there are a lot of cartridges why not play it safe? All my acquaintances have not experienced "cartridge hunger" and apparently from there and advice. So most likely both statements are true, but with a caveat to the situation.
            2. Lopatov
              Lopatov 12 May 2016 10: 08
              +3
              Yeah ... you will die not tired.
              1. zadorin1974
                zadorin1974 12 May 2016 11: 26
                +2
                Lopatov goodNot hungry either. laughing
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 12 May 2016 11: 30
                  +4
                  Under Pionersky came down company with a hill
                  - Damn, guys, I haven’t eaten anything for two days.
                  --Why? I had to force myself ...
            3. yehat
              yehat 12 May 2016 14: 43
              0
              usually 50-70 kg of boars are dragged, which weigh under 100 and for them it is not so difficult.
              However, as a student, I carried 80 kg of books in my bag to the 3 km train, and weighed 54 and carried nothing. And if at unloading, on a backpack and in hands to distribute the weight of 50 kg, it is not so difficult for a "by definition" trained person.
              I know tourists who scratch mountains like a saiga with a 70 kg backpack.
              True, there is one "but": I don't know anyone who can shoot accurately during such a campaign. My hands are shaking personally.
          2. yehat
            yehat 12 May 2016 14: 37
            0
            it works with a flamethrower, not with a gun)))
        2. Hell's Angel
          Hell's Angel 12 May 2016 10: 20
          +2
          I wonder who put you a minus?

          I don’t see - I don’t shoot, I shoot solitary - the golden rule, colleagues from hot spots.
          Apparently I disagree with this. And in vain!
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 12 May 2016 10: 30
            +3
            Quote: Hell Angel
            And very vain!

            Why? In real life, situations often arise when you have to shoot in the "don't see" position.
            Well, stupid monkeying for the Americans with their school of shooting singles is even stupider. Their training for this is "sharpened" for three quarters of a century, the weapon is optimized for such shooting. We have a different shooting school. With all that it implies.
          2. Svateev
            12 May 2016 11: 21
            +3
            Quote: Hell Angel
            I shoot solo - the golden rule, colleagues from hot spots.
            Apparently I disagree with this. And in vain!

            If you are sure that you will hit with one shot, then without question, it is better to save BC. But starting from certain ranges, the natural dispersion of the shots is already so great that even if you aim precisely, you may not get hit because of the tolerances for making a cartridge or weapon. At these ranges, it is better to shoot in line.
            In practice, in a battle, when they shoot at you and aim carefully, it just doesn’t work out, the line is the only way to get there.
      2. gringo
        gringo 12 May 2016 10: 00
        -1
        in my opinion the result will be the same. ak quite accurately and closely heats single. but the difference is that 1 or 2-3 bullets will fly into the target in my opinion is not fundamental.
        1. DimerVladimer
          DimerVladimer 12 May 2016 11: 08
          +2
          Let's just say AK-74 - heap at a distance of up to 300 m and if the wind is not gusty - the bullet is light. At 400 meters, with a strong lateral position, it will "bot" along the trajectory and hitting the head 2 out of 10 will be considered good luck.
          1. gringo
            gringo 12 May 2016 11: 32
            +2
            in the head with an open sight from 300 meters? It must be Chingachguk. if we talk about combined arms combat at such distances, the machine gun works
            1. Svateev
              12 May 2016 11: 57
              +1
              Quote: gringo
              then you have to be a chingachguk.

              We call it "best shooters". And they, too, will not hit every line, but only 6-7 times out of 10 lines (see the probability of hitting in Fig. 4).
              Quote: gringo
              at such distances the machine gun works

              A machine gun gets even worse than an automatic machine and takes only very long bursts. Because the first bullet of a machine gun dissipates greatly due to the peculiarities of automation (pulling the tape). And by the way, from a machine gun with a direct shot, one also needs to shoot from a smaller scope than is usual for a chest target.
              1. yehat
                yehat 12 May 2016 14: 49
                0
                I do not know. my brother served on the BMP-3 in the motorized infantry. He says that with large-caliber machine guns and small-caliber cannons, hitting almost like a laser - what you see in the sight is in holes.
                Ballistics is just crazy. And the ribbon feed makes it very easy to take corrections into account when shooting in a hose-down style.
        2. Svateev
          12 May 2016 11: 23
          +3
          Quote: gringo
          the difference is that 1 or 2-3 bullets will fly at the target in my opinion is not fundamental.

          The queue is needed not to put more bullets into the target, but to to get at least one bullet.
      3. Svateev
        12 May 2016 10: 18
        +6
        Quote: Jack-B
        solitary result will be even worse.

        I’ll clarify: if you shoot solo, then with the same BC you will hit more targets than bursts. And if you shoot at a shooting range at targets for an argument with a friend, then it is better to shoot solo. And in battle, not only the probability of hitting is important, but also the time to hit the target. The time for aiming-descent is that for a single shot, that the queue goes the same way, and the probability of getting in line is much higher. Therefore, it is recommended to shoot bursts in battle. Although, of course, if there is no way to replenish the BC, you have to choose.
        1. DimerVladimer
          DimerVladimer 12 May 2016 11: 23
          +5
          I agree - you feel a practitioner.

          The AK-74 is a wonderful machine gun and better at a distance of 300 meters is not necessary.
          At a distance of over 400 already have bursts of 3.
          At 500 meters, the M-4 (M16A2) will still be more crowded, but for me the open sight is more convenient in battle (wider field of view), the diptopric sight is good at the shooting range.

          In general, it's time to take a closer look at the American experience - now in their department there are 2 shooters with automatic rifles with weighted barrels for accurate shooting - this way they cover a distance of 500 - 1000 m.
          1. yehat
            yehat 12 May 2016 14: 53
            0
            and what does it mean - with weighted trunks?
            barrel length or barrel made according to more stringent requirements or something else?
            or they have not M-4, but some kind of M2NV / M2A1?
    2. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 12 May 2016 10: 51
      +4
      You reason within the training range.
      There are times when you need automatic fire.
      For example, they ran into an ambush and needed suppressive fire, in short bursts, so that the enemy could not raise his head otherwise after 5 minutes there would be no one to save the BC.
  7. this
    this 12 May 2016 08: 39
    +3
    Uh, but do they not say in the army that one should always take a little lower, because bullets always go up a little. And about the collimator author, in general, some kind of blizzard drives them as you like and adjust.
    1. RuslanD36
      RuslanD36 12 May 2016 08: 59
      0
      I watched the boar-km shooting. When heating the barrel, the bullets at 100 meters lie 30-40 cm higher.
    2. Svateev
      12 May 2016 10: 25
      +3
      Quote: tohoto
      you should always take a little lower, because bullets always go up a little.

      So that the bullets do not go above the arrow behind the parapet, and you need to make the sight mark "P 0,3".
      Quote: tohoto
      About the collimator author, in general, some blizzard drives them as you like and adjust.

      What do you mean "as you want" ?! Actually, in each sight manual, the excess of the STP over the aiming point is indicated, to which the sight must be brought. And this excess is now indicated by the one that gives the firing range of 400m, that is, the sight "4". And to get into the arrow behind the parapet, you need to lead to 357m for AK74 or 285m for AK and AKM.
    3. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 12 May 2016 11: 27
      +4
      The collimator (diopter) sight overlaps the view.
      To me personally or open (up to 300-500 m), for a distance over - optics
  8. black
    black 12 May 2016 09: 02
    +4
    I was perplexed for a long time until I came to the phrase "the schedule was drawn up according to the calculations of the author." If there was a paper article, I would take it to the toilet. Use as directed. There, at the very beginning of the opus, the conclusion suggests itself: the higher the dispersion, the higher the probability of hitting. The machine was made for war, not for sports entertainment. And the author, he is great, yeah. And everyone else, before him, was chronic. At a range of 400 meters, the target's head is just the size of the front sight width. And the funniest thing about the author is that the enemy will bury himself exactly 400 meters from us. He will come straight so decisively, he counts exactly 400 meters from me and begins to dig a trench. There is real practice, not reflection. He gave the command to his fighters to set the sight at 3 and do not toil with foolishness. And its own collimator, when shooting at 300 meters. Collimator sights with small magnification could solve the problem of increasing the firing efficiency.
    1. bunta
      bunta 12 May 2016 09: 31
      +5
      Quote: black
      There, at the very beginning of the opus, the conclusion suggests itself: the higher the dispersion, the higher the probability of being hit.


      Before certain limits (!) this is the case. The theory of probability is her mother's mother. Somewhere there is an article by A. Lovi
      http://www.arms-expo.ru/news/archive/chto-opredelyaet-effektivnost-ognya-avtomat
      icheskogo-oruzhiya-09-01-2013-23-38-00/
      1. bunta
        bunta 12 May 2016 09: 34
        +1
        Quote: bunta
        http://www.arms-expo.ru

        Damn, sorry this is not that article. But still interesting.
    2. Jack-b
      Jack-b 12 May 2016 10: 25
      0
      If the main thing is not to fool around, then you can put on 10-ku. What is the difference: hit or miss? The main thing is not to fool around. Normal logic. Great commander.
      1. black
        black 12 May 2016 18: 56
        +1
        For two and a half wars, I did not have irrevocable losses of personnel. And you?
        1. Svateev
          12 May 2016 19: 00
          0
          Quote: black
          During the two and a half wars, I had no irreparable losses of personnel

          Have you had any fights?
          1. black
            black 12 May 2016 20: 17
            +1
            No, I'm at the headquarters, a clerk.
            1. Svateev
              12 May 2016 20: 55
              -1
              Quote: black
              No, I'm at the headquarters, a clerk.

              Scribes usually answer that. For the interlocutor to decide: "Well, then, not a clerk, if he says so!"
              1. black
                black 12 May 2016 21: 02
                0
                Send you my entire track record? Together with "business trips"?
                1. Svateev
                  12 May 2016 21: 38
                  0
                  Quote: black
                  send my whole track record

                  Not worth it. Better stop flirting like a girl with a marriageable age.
    3. Svateev
      12 May 2016 10: 44
      +4
      Quote: black
      the conclusion suggests itself: the higher the dispersion, the higher the probability of hitting.

      This he begs only from you (apparently you are just in the toilet). You do not know how to understand what is written:
      It is known that the best accuracy of firing guarantees an increase in the probability of hitting only if the average point of hits (STP) has not gone beyond the contours of the target. If the STP is outside the target's contours, better accuracy can reduce the probability of hitting [1, section 4.10. Optimum dispersion of shots].

      Quote: black
      At a range of 400 meters, the target's head is just the size of the width of the fly.

      You don’t know how to count elementary things, and you didn’t see the target in the sight. I will disappoint you to the impossibility: a head the width of a fly is already at 100-150m.
      Quote: black
      the funniest thing for the author is that the enemy will dig exactly 400 meters from us

      You have no idea what a straight shot is! Namely, such a shot allows you to shoot without moving the sight ... The whole article is devoted to this direct shot, and then the "black one" appears and declares with aplomb:
      Quote: black
      He gave his fighters the command to put their sights on 3 and are not foolish.

      And what am I writing about, are you a "black man" ?! Get out of the toilet and read the article again!
      And I don’t need to present my own proposal as a revelation, published back in 2013 in the "Bulletin of the Academy of Military Sciences" No. 2, the article "Submachine gunner must and can hit the head figure"!
      Quote: black
      And his collimator, when shot at 300 meters.

      It’s better to shoot at 357 if at AK74, why lose 57? Or on 285 if AKM or AK.
      1. BIP PS FSB RF
        BIP PS FSB RF 12 May 2016 15: 43
        0
        Quote: Svateev
        Quote: black
        the conclusion suggests itself: the higher the dispersion, the higher the probability of hitting.

        This he begs only from you (apparently you are just in the toilet). You do not know how to understand what is written:

        And you have such a conclusion.
        Thus, for modern sights (for the “4” tag), the better the accuracy of machine gun shooting is, the lower the probability of hitting the main target at ranges from 150 to 250-300.

        And it goes from your article - if you make the accuracy higher, then the whole whistle goes with an eye on the side, because you have the whole calculation through the theory of probability - maybe it will, the accuracy is big.

        You wrote above that the company was engaged in combat training of personnel, and not reinvent the wheel. Teach the soldier to shoot from what is right, and not with theories of assumption.
      2. black
        black 12 May 2016 19: 00
        0
        And you boor, my dear. You can invent anything, but I’m a practitioner and all your flights of fantasy will remain fantasies. Behind me is a personal cemetery, and you have a mountain of waste paper.
        1. Svateev
          12 May 2016 20: 25
          0
          Quote: black
          Behind me is a personal cemetery, and you have a mountain of waste paper.

          Damn beautifully said! It is a pity that you were not the first to say this, this expression has been around for a long time on the Internet. How they stole and "set the sight" 3 ", they stole from my old article.
          And by the way, why do you have an American flag?
          1. black
            black 12 May 2016 20: 51
            0
            And I work with Google, from the phone. It would be from a computer, through Yandex, there would be a tricolor.
          2. black
            black 12 May 2016 20: 52
            0
            By the way. Herald of the Academy of Military Sciences, never held in his hands. The peasants we are. We don’t know the letters.
            1. Svateev
              12 May 2016 21: 07
              0
              Quote: black
              Herald of the Academy of Military Sciences, never held in his hands.

              Do you know how to stomp the keys on the keyboard? Then open this one:
              http://topwar.ru/34890-avtomatchik-dolzhen-i-mozhet-porazhat-golovnuyu-figuru.ht

              ml
              and here it is
              http://topwar.ru/34891-avtomatchik-dolzhen-i-mozhet-porazhat-golovnuyu-figuru-ch

              ast-2.html #
              and there will be a peasant happiness for you.
              PS This site for some reason breaks the addresses of the pages. You need to copy the address and end it on the next line, paste it into the address bar of the browser and then remove the space.
              1. black
                black 12 May 2016 21: 26
                0
                You are in a fit of passion, reading and perceiving information has ceased. Manic-depressive psychosis. Your clever ideas can never come to anyone else? This is a diagnosis. At the very bottom of the discussion, I dropped another comment for you. Read and take it easy.
                1. Svateev
                  12 May 2016 21: 35
                  +1
                  Quote: black
                  Your clever ideas can never come to anyone else?

                  That is, you came up with the same ideas as me, and you are now in the comments against these your = my ideas fiercely fighting ?!
                  It’s not my psychosis out there, but your personality split!
            2. Gray brother
              Gray brother 13 May 2016 12: 56
              -1
              "By the way," write solidly, otherwise it looks bad with the amersky flag. laughing
    4. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 12 May 2016 11: 39
      +3
      And you imagine - you stomped it and were ambushed, of course, if not fools and in an equal numerical ratio - they will let you go at 100-150 and put everyone in 1 minute.

      And if you are 100 and there are 10 of them? Yes, even five of them with two arrows and a machine gun and three with grenade launchers - then 300-400 meters just right! They dug in the green and until you determine where they are shooting from - you already have 7 two hundredths and 15 hundredths.
      Well, you determined the machine gun and began to huddle, but the arrows will not let you go up, and the machine gun will change its position.
      Total for 5 minutes, 30% of the composition injured 10% killed. The ambush appeared and left - to organize the persecution with such losses is stupid. Walk around - run into mines or at a reserve position you will be met.
      1. black
        black 12 May 2016 19: 05
        0
        There was a case, I was ambushed. There are two of us, seven of them. And there was a machine gun and an armored personnel carrier. And the distance was 30 meters. Alive, as you can see. Aby, yes, if not our method.
        1. Svateev
          12 May 2016 20: 28
          0
          Quote: black
          Alive as you see

          Surrendered, or what?
          No offence! If in fact it were so, then you would tell how and how you stayed alive. But this release of the "fog of uncertainty" is from the arsenal of scammers.
          1. black
            black 12 May 2016 20: 54
            0
            Is it really interesting? The funny thing is that according to your logic, I have to write something heroic. He believed the local resident and went point blank, and the dogs passed.
            1. Svateev
              12 May 2016 21: 19
              +1
              Quote: black
              He believed the local resident and went point blank, and the dogs passed.

              Begging for clarification questions? But I will not ask, flirting further in solitude.
  9. gringo
    gringo 12 May 2016 09: 28
    -1
    All dances with a tambourine around ak12 abakans and other things started in order to increase accuracy when firing from unstable positions, and here shooting from a prone position. from the prone position, the accuracy of the ak 74 is quite acceptable, the us1 is executed by 6-7 rounds of 12. The author reread the books in my opinion and now raves
    1. Svateev
      12 May 2016 10: 49
      +4
      Quote: gringo
      lying accuracy ak Xnumx is quite acceptable,

      The meaning of the article is not in the accuracy, but in the fact that the STP should be brought into the contours of the head target. Articles must be read before raving in the comments.
  10. the47th
    the47th 12 May 2016 09: 31
    +1
    I think it is pointless to install the best open sights, because the front sight of the same AK-74 is adjustable, and you can calibrate the sight at any distance. The problem is the quality of fire training, the arrows simply do not know what excess to take at different distances. A conventional collimator sight will also not solve the problem of aiming errors. The best option: when the sight itself will calculate the distance to the target and enter the excess on its own (something like FN FCU).

    S 32: 00
    1. Svateev
      12 May 2016 10: 52
      +1
      Quote: the47th
      the arrows simply do not know what excess to take at different distances

      Porridge. If you are talking about height corrections that need to be taken at different ranges, then you are not familiar with a direct shot. Is the shooter self-taught?
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 12 May 2016 12: 00
        +2
        Quote: Svateev
        Porridge. If you are talking about height corrections that need to be taken at different ranges, then you are not familiar with a direct shot. Is the shooter self-taught?


        Certainly, some fired at the firing range, taking into account range corrections, lateral wind corrections, temperature, Coriolis strength, etc. But for combat use, the introduction of amendments should be elementary, intuitive and within the scope of an open sight - the most suitable for military operations.

        Whatever fire training you have, hitting the head from a distance of more than 300 meters from an assault rifle (AK-74) is a very difficult task for a trained shooter. From 400-500 meters for the AK-74 barrel, this is an unrealistic task! Even when using optics - on this type of barrel and ammunition - this is a difficult task for a trained shooter - almost random hits. The dispersion of the standard ammunition leaves no chances for an accurate shot from the AK-74 at such a distance, even if the barrel is of a sufficiently high quality, is not "shot", is not exposed to overheating, etc.

        The Americans solved this issue by introducing into the department 2 trained shooters with special weapons (automatic and semi-automatic rifles with a weighted barrel and optical sights and special ammunition.
      2. the47th
        the47th 12 May 2016 12: 23
        -2
        Let's take the overshoot plate for the AK-74. And we will see that the excess does not need to be taken for the sight at "1" at ranges up to 100 m, for "2" - at a range of 200 m, etc., that is, a decrease in the flight trajectory is observed after 100 m, in all other cases either always set the sight at the required range, or take previously known excess. And no amount of alignment will allow a weapon with a hypothetical sight "P" to shoot at different distances without different overshoots.
        1. Svateev
          12 May 2016 12: 56
          +2
          Quote: the47th
          Let’s take the excess sign for AK-74.

          To begin with, we take the manual for AK74 in its entirety (the table of excesses is only an appendix to this manual) and read the article 155. And pay attention to the words "When shooting at a distance of up to 400m, fire should be fired, as a rule, with a" 4 "or" P "sight ... aiming at the lower edge of the target or in the middle if the target is high (running figures, etc.)" And we won’t interrupt the conversation of adult uncles who are discussing direct shotthat you have no idea about.
          Quote: the47th
          that is, a decrease in the flight path is observed after 100 m

          The trajectory decreases after the top, and not after 100m. And the peak of each trajectory has its own. Take one more table from the manual for AK74 - the main table, there it is all painted.
          Quote: the47th
          And no amount of alignment will allow weapons with a hypothetical "P" sight to shoot at different distances without different overshoots.

          Sight "P" - permanent - has been used for a hundred years, or even more. Therefore, you are hypothetical, not he.
          I did not write a single superfluous word here, and if I have cited an excerpt from Article 155 of the manual on AK74, it is not in vain. Got the hint?
        2. Igor39
          Igor39 12 May 2016 15: 06
          +3
          Here's a straight shot that uncles are talking about smile
          1. Svateev
            12 May 2016 17: 28
            +2
            Quote: Igor39
            Here's a straight shot that uncles are talking about

            To clarify, this is a direct shot at a growth target. There will be other ranges along the head: 357 for AK74 and 285 for AK and AKM.
            By the way. my scheme, from one of my articles.
  11. gringo
    gringo 12 May 2016 09: 35
    +5
    I always fired with a "P" and did not steam with theoretical calculations, I'm not a sniper from the first shot, you can correct it by ricochets, and the main thing is that the machine gun was brought to a normal battle, up to 100-150 m is no worse than a screw (80-95 in AK41). And further from the open sight one x is not visible.
    1. Svateev
      12 May 2016 10: 57
      +5
      Quote: gringo
      always fired with a "P" and did not bother with theoretical calculations

      "Steam" is the lot of thinking people.
      You did not even understand from the article that you were shooting at a chest target, the height of which is 0,5 m. And you have to hit the arrow behind the parapet, which is only 0,3 m high. And the scope "P" hits badly on such a target.
      Quote: gringo
      can be adjusted for rebounds

      Ricochet can be seen only in the picture in the manual on small business, where such advice is given. There, bullet hits are marked in the picture .... in the air next to the target.
      Bullets go ABOVE the target. What are you going to see the rebound above the target?
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 12 May 2016 12: 15
        +2
        In my practice at the training ground, I took a position where the chest target was covered with a mound - only the corner from the head was visible. For some time of practice and "feeling" the trajectory of the AK-74, it was consistently possible to throw over the bump, although at this distance the declination of the trajectory was very small - about 3-4 cm, but this was enough to catch the head "behind the bump".
        1. Svateev
          12 May 2016 13: 08
          +2
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          Some time of practice and "feeling" the trajectory of the AK-74,

          But after all, it is necessary so as not to waste time "groping for the trajectory" in order to get in the first line.
          And in your example with the "P 0,3" sight it would be easier: imagine where the bottom of this head figure is, aim at the presented lower edge of this figure and, if the bump is halfway to the target, then the bullets will definitely fly over the bump and at the same time hit the target.
      2. gringo
        gringo 12 May 2016 12: 51
        0
        if you shoot with a pen and a pencil on a piece of paper, then the bullets really go up and the bounce is invisible. I read the article carefully and if I see the goal I will hit it 0,3m she or 0,5 does not play the piano. I’m explaining to you that no matter what kind of machine gun it might be, well, it’s never a sniper weapon to a soldier, if you meant by a soldier’s arrow to shoot at a fixed target at an effective fire, it’s unnecessary to clog your head with corrections and calculate distances. Well, attacks if at the training ground under kokhfei it is possible of course and from ... tsya. IMHO
        1. Svateev
          12 May 2016 14: 17
          0
          Quote: gringo
          if I see a target I will hit it 0,3 it or 0,5 does not play the piano here.

          A certain gringo answered you witty:
          Quote: gringo
          if you shoot with a pen and pencil on a piece of paper

          Quote: gringo
          when shooting at a fixed target at an effective fire, it is unnecessary to clog your head with corrections and calculate distances.

          The whole article is devoted to how it is easier, without corrections and determining the distance to get into battle, and at the end of the dispute gringo produces the same thoughts as his own. Sileo-yo-yo-n!
  12. bbss
    bbss 12 May 2016 10: 20
    -1
    Quote: BIP PS FSB RF
    if your bullet goes above the head of the opponent - take it below.

    I totally agree! Under the bull's eye!
  13. King, just king
    King, just king 12 May 2016 10: 21
    +5
    The article is academic.
    But when you are being beaten in the middle of nowhere, from all sorts of things, it is unlikely that a simple infantryman will disassemble the intricacies of aiming. Here the task is to crush with fire, and not a target of 30 cm. My personal opinion.

    Yes, I will add. Well, where is a simple motorized infantry dummy on the slats on the machine? Dear .... (lose)?
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 12 May 2016 11: 00
      +2
      Everywhere they go, they’ll make them give birth, and judging from my experience they will give birth successfully, there was a case with a frontal plate from BMP-1.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 12 May 2016 11: 04
        +2
        Quote: cth; fyn
        there was a case with a frontal plate from BMP-1

        "Ribbed" in non-ferrous metal pulled? laughing
    2. Svateev
      12 May 2016 11: 26
      +7
      Quote: King, just king
      it is unlikely that a simple infantryman will disassemble the intricacies of aiming.

      Absolutely right! It is for this that there is a direct shot - no subtleties - at any range within the limits of a direct shot we aim at the lower edge of the target. And we get there.
  14. 2s1122
    2s1122 12 May 2016 10: 31
    +2
    Someone wrote that the article is excellent, what kind of nonsense? Here is a small excerpt from the article: "At a distance of 150-300m, the main number of bullets goes above the lying infantry." This is that the enemy should put a flag on themselves to be hit. enemy at a distance of 300m without optics, you will get a hell of a hell if you are not a hereditary hunter and fisherman and this is in a real battle.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 12 May 2016 10: 45
      +4
      Quote: 2s1122
      And if you are not a hereditary hunter hunter and this is in a real battle, you will get into a lying enemy at a distance of 300m without optics.

      One person with the first shot, most likely not.
      One person firing bursts will eventually fall.
      And the squad, firing bursts, will do this faster and with lower BC consumption.
      Because probability theory.

      In fact, the article is not about "hitting the first shot", but about increasing the likelihood of such an event as "hitting a lying enemy at a distance of 300m with at least one round"
    2. Svateev
      12 May 2016 11: 30
      +3
      Quote: 2s1122
      you’ll get to hell with an enemy lying at a distance of 300 without optics

      You will not hit the "4" mark with a direct shot even with a telescopic sight. Because the bullets will go above the target. And from the "P 0,3" mark you will also hit the sector (mechanical), because the bullets go lower, just into the arrow behind the parapet. Although, of course, optics marked "P 0,3" are the best option.
    3. brn521
      brn521 12 May 2016 11: 51
      +2
      Quote: 2s1122
      And if you are not a hereditary hunter hunter and this is in a real battle, you will get into a lying enemy at a distance of 300m without optics.

      What is a hunter-hunter? They do not use automatic weapons. Therefore, the statistics of hits when conducting automatic fire on the drum.
    4. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 12 May 2016 12: 16
      +3
      for this there is a grenade launcher
  15. Verdun
    Verdun 12 May 2016 10: 34
    +3
    High-precision sights are a necessary thing, but capricious and fragile. Simply put, poorly suited for mass use. Probably, they are needed, but, as many have already written in the comments, the practice of shooting is much more important. Since the fighter, who fired only a couple of times during the service, will not have time to master either the weapon or the sight.
    up to 100-150 m is not worse than a screw (80-95 in AK41). and further from an open sight one can not see anything.
    Vision in people is different. Someone cannot reach the cup at arm's length, while someone shoots at 500 meters without optics.
  16. uskrabut
    uskrabut 12 May 2016 10: 38
    +7
    The machine itself does not shoot, a man shoots from it. So this person must be taught to shoot from a machine gun. That says it all.
    A machine that AK-74, AKM - are good. Of the others, sorry, did not shoot.
  17. Bryanskiy_Volk
    Bryanskiy_Volk 12 May 2016 11: 06
    +3
    As I was taught to shoot by the old ensign (short from AK-74 at a height of 300m): "Shoot at your feet: hit with the first shot - well, if not, then you will definitely hit the second shot due to the jump."
    Well, let's say that the new assault rifles really shoot 2 times more hefty (although with almost the same barrel length and identical ammunition ..., hmm request ) This is good on the one hand, but it takes a lot of corrections to take into account a lot of things. That is, I want to say that it is precisely due to the greater dispersion that compensates, to some extent, errors during aiming. What if the entire store in one queue can fly to one aiming point, but by when firing from new machine guns with the stated accuracy? hi
    1. Svateev
      12 May 2016 11: 46
      +5
      Quote: Bryanskiy_Volk
      So what if the entire store in one burst can fly to one aiming point, but past when firing from new machine guns with the stated accuracy?

      The meaning of the article is the same. But at the same time it is shown how to bring the STP into the contours of the target, so that there is a benefit from better accuracy and new machines are needed.
      1. Bryanskiy_Volk
        Bryanskiy_Volk 12 May 2016 12: 00
        0
        In this case (in order to improve the STP) it is not necessary to invent a new bicycle (automatic), but it is more logical to adapt the optics and collimators to the existing ones. hi
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 12 May 2016 12: 16
          +3
          Not more logical.
          Don’t forget, the infantry division is not at all the Wilhelm Tell Practical Shooting Club.

          These are not loners. And their opponent is not alone either. The same infantry unit, also imprisoned for destruction or suppression group goals.

          Increased accuracy theoretically reduces the time it takes to hit a target and reduces ammunition consumption. But at the same time, such an advantage as high accuracy is also necessary to realize.
          1. Bryanskiy_Volk
            Bryanskiy_Volk 12 May 2016 12: 33
            0
            You are not justifying my "illogicality", but this is a completely different story laughing
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 12 May 2016 15: 35
              +2
              Quote: Bryanskiy_Volk
              You do not justify my "illogicality",

              Please.

              Optics and other "advanced" aiming systems are just one of the methods for realizing high accuracy. That is why, for example, the optics were not installed on the PPSh? Because it makes no sense.
              Further, advanced aiming systems are by no means the easiest and cheapest method of realizing high accuracy. Quite the opposite
              Further, for the infantry, whose target in the overwhelming majority of cases is the group, steep optics increase rather than reduce the difficulty of destroying or suppressing the target. For powerful optics requires no less powerful coordination system capable of "on the fly", almost instantly distribute targets between shooters

              Well and so on ... Ask the infantry, they will explain why only one optical sight on the compartment, at the senior shooter, is enough. Even for the squad leader, this is redundant.
          2. Svateev
            12 May 2016 13: 13
            +2
            Quote: Spade
            such an advantage as high accuracy is also necessary to implement.

            Absolutely, colleague! About that and the speech in the article.
        2. Svateev
          12 May 2016 13: 11
          +2
          Quote: Bryanskiy_Volk
          no need to invent a new bike (automatic), but it’s more logical to adapt the optics and collimators to existing ones.

          I don’t understand, did you read the article to the end? It is precisely such conclusions that are made:
          Without these sights, it’s pointless to put into service automatic rifles with improved accuracy, as their combat effectiveness with old sights is no better than the automatic rifles already in service.
          Implementing scopes labeled “P 0,3” and / or non-discrete passive sights is a priority and no alternative. In the case of a lack of funds at the same time for new sights and new machines it is necessary to introduce new sights, and not new machines.
  18. Verdun
    Verdun 12 May 2016 11: 35
    0
    When shooting at long distances, regardless of the design of the weapon and sight, you have to make allowances for wind, weather conditions and lighting conditions, the quality of ammunition, take into account possible target movements ... No matter how perfect the aiming system, without its proper experience you won’t be able to take advantage. In this case, the shooter, as an athlete, must constantly train to maintain good shape. I believe that at least once every two weeks. Otherwise, all this is empty.
    1. Svateev
      12 May 2016 12: 06
      +3
      Quote: Verdun
      When shooting at long distances,

      First we need at close range - 200-300m - to learn how to fall! And then we shoot above the enemy behind the parapet.
  19. PSih2097
    PSih2097 12 May 2016 11: 48
    +1
    This is the Nikonov AN-94 assault rifle, which has been in service for many years, but has not received the distribution that it would seem to be guaranteed with such good accuracy of fire. The more complex AN-94 device is constantly noted, but there is no significant increase in combat effectiveness - an increase in the probability of hitting real targets in battle.

    good in everything, though there is one thing, but while you clean it, seven pots will come off ...
  20. Severok
    Severok 12 May 2016 12: 07
    +5
    AN-94 fired. The first two bullets go with the maximum rate of fire - one after the other, and then the usual rate of fire Kalashov. But the complexity of the weapon is two orders of magnitude higher. While disassembled for cleaning, they spat, collected - not only spat, but also cursed and dreamed of a glass, without which this weapon did not want to collect.

    AN-94 transitional material. Too complicated for work in the army, a diopter sighting device - categorically not available to him - the battlefield is not visible, the hole in the sight is easily clogged with snow and dirt, and what to clean? Shooting from it with a folded butt is only for those who have silicone joints on their right hand - the butt presses on the hand.

    As a result, Kalash is still better.
  21. Kenneth
    Kenneth 12 May 2016 12: 53
    +1
    IMHO should be hit by a sniper, and an ordinary soldier in the event that he nevertheless has to use personal weapons must ensure sufficient density of fire for his unit to prevent the adversary from returning fire.
    1. Svateev
      12 May 2016 14: 24
      +1
      Quote: Kenneth
      a sniper should hit, and an ordinary soldier in the event that he still has to use personal weapons

      The further into the forest - the more firewood, in the sense of blockheads! Even so: "IF a soldier has to use his personal weapon" ?! What human rights NGO are you in, sir?
  22. Thompson
    Thompson 12 May 2016 14: 00
    0
    Like horses all the way to heaps! All that the author writes about takes place only in a professional army.
    When a soldier has his own assault rifle and he often shoots him, he shoots him for himself and shoots him as he sees fit. And this is in all the armies of the world. And for the rest of the army, the average is enough.
    1. Svateev
      12 May 2016 14: 35
      +2
      Quote: Thompson
      All that the author writes about takes place only in a professional army.

      On the contrary, a direct shot, due to its ease of use, is well suited for the draft army. And they should not be neglected by the contractor.
      Quote: Thompson
      he shoots it for himself and shoots as he sees fit.

      Well said. And completely pointless. Something like this says a stupid wife: "Give me money. And where you take from is none of my business, take it where it is convenient for you."
      And how do you think it is "convenient" for a contractor to "shoot" a machine gun?
  23. Angor
    Angor 12 May 2016 14: 10
    +1
    Article plus, you need to shoot accurately and be able to aim correctly. You also need to understand that there is no universal weapon, and it all depends on the specifics of the tasks. The AK-47 was good at the time, as was its accuracy, because the tactics of warfare were considered when meeting large troops units and the fire was fired not by sight but by sectors. The last three decades, wars and conflicts have shown that battles are fought mainly in cities where aim fire is necessary. Therefore, it is necessary to change weapons to more modern, at the same time update the sights that already exist, also produce new ones that correspond to the modern conduct of action.
    Regarding the choice for the AK-12: you need to understand that there are millions of people who served during the Soviet Union and they are all familiar with the Kalashnikov assault rifle. When it becomes necessary they will be much easier to handle the AK-12 than the Nikonov assault rifle (modern conflicts are very fast , it is unlikely there will be time to retrain spare parts).
    The AN-94 Nikonov assault rifle is a good weapon, but let us leave it to those who will be able to conduct more targeted shooting.
  24. vladnp
    vladnp 12 May 2016 14: 24
    +2
    The author is a big plus. Infrequently such company companies are found.
    1. Svateev
      12 May 2016 14: 43
      +3
      Quote: vladnp
      Infrequently such company companies are found.

      Such companies are found only in stock. In stock, there is time to think things over, to calculate ... In the meantime, served in that cycle there was no time to sleep, and not just write an article.
  25. Droid
    Droid 12 May 2016 14: 38
    +6
    but there is no significant increase in combat effectiveness — an increase in the probability of hitting real targets in battle.


    It is quite a note. In military trials, ordinary soldiers hit targets from the AN-94 more often 1,5-2 times compared with the AK74. The problem, or rather the problem, is different - the cost of the AN-94 at the initial stage was 5-7 times higher than the cost of the AK74M delivered to the stream, the start of production was in 1998 (default), there are no training materials and normal guidance on the AN-94 so far. Naturally, under these conditions the AN-94 did not receive distribution, because the vast majority of officers (you can’t even remember the soldiers) just do not understand why it was made and tell each other stories about 2 bullets in one hole.

    The dead infantry is precisely target number 6, because it is precisely those who went on the attack, that is, often where necessary. And behind the parapet there is infantry on the defensive, along which fire is fired at distances of less than 250 m from a standing position with the hand, and it does not matter whether the middle trajectory passes through the target or 10-15 cm above it because there is a large dispersion from an unstable position and an error guidance at least 1 etc. interrupt this difference. Actually with a sight P shoot in the defense and the enemy must still approach 200m and then lay down. Under fire! Well lie down and let yourself lie, the task of the defenders is completed. Yes, no one bothers the squad leader to give the appropriate order - sight 3, if the soldiers themselves did not realize.
    PS The manual does not require, but recommends shooting with a P-sight up to 400 m, it also recommends setting the sight at an appropriate distance. And there is also a unit commander who was taught for what purpose from which weapon with which sight the trajectory will not exceed the height of the target. And they taught him, not according to leadership, to control the unit’s fire, indicating the priority goals and the corresponding sight.
    1. Svateev
      12 May 2016 15: 18
      +4
      Quote: Droid
      In military trials, ordinary soldiers hit targets from the AN-94 more often 1,5-2 times than AK74.

      Of course, it was noted. At the training ground. That is exactly what TSNIITOCHMASH answered me: we checked according to the BREAST goals - everything is fine, we get there!
      You, like TSNIITOCHMASH, stubbornly confuse targets in battle and targets at field trials. At the shooting range, our submachine gunners have the lowest targets - chest targets 0,5 m high. The mark "P" is optimized for them and therefore the STP does not go beyond the contours of the chest target. Any improvement in accuracy will naturally increase the hit probability. And in battle, targets with a height of 0,3 m and STP with marks "P" and "4" at ranges of 150-300 m above these targets. Improving accuracy leads to a decrease in the probability of hitting (see the first line in the article Table 1). I wrote in the article that the AN-94:
      there is no significant increase in combat effectiveness - an increase in the probability of hitting real targets in battle

      To check this, you need to shoot at the shooting range not at the chest, but at the head targets.
      Quote: Droid
      stories about 2 bullets in one hole.

      This property is very useful against new ceramic body armor. They have one feature: in the place where the bullet hits the armor plate crumbles and its strength decreases sharply. And if a second bullet hits the same spot, then it breaks through the defense.
      Quote: Droid
      The dead infantry is precisely target No. 6, because it is precisely those who went on the attack, that is, often where necessary.

      The infantry does not lie where it is necessary. Because even before getting up for a dash, the infantryman outlines a shelter where he will run. So we teach in our instructions, likewise the probable opponent teaches. See the evidence here
      http://topwar.ru/34890-avtomatchik-dolzhen-i-mozhet-porazhat-golovnuyu-figuru.ht
      ml
      http://topwar.ru/34891-avtomatchik-dolzhen-i-mozhet-porazhat-golovnuyu-figuru-ch
      ast-2.html #
      No, sometimes, of course, it happens to fall out of the blue, but this is the exception, and the rule is over the parapet.
      Quote: Droid
      And behind the parapet is the infantry on the defensive,

      Well, at least it was admitted. Now tell me, stepping on the entrenched enemy from the mark "4" should you shoot? Or is it better with "P 0,3"?
      Quote: Droid
      large dispersion from an unstable position and a minimum pointing error in 1 etc. interrupt this difference.

      Shooting errors can not kill each other, they overlap each other - they are summed. And the smaller each error will be, the less common.
      1. Droid
        Droid 12 May 2016 16: 02
        0
        You, like TSNIITOCHMASH, stubbornly confuse targets in battle and targets at field trials. At the shooting range, our submachine gunners have the lowest targets - chest targets 0,5 m high. The mark "P" is optimized for them and therefore the STP does not go beyond the contours of the chest target.

        All is correct. The main targets do not run and do not go on the attack, and the sight P is for shooting in defense.
        I wrote in the article that AN-94 has:

        Celebrated for any purpose.
        To check this, you need to shoot at the shooting range not at the chest, but at the head targets.

        1. Head targets do not attack. They lay down and let them lie.
        2. And they shot at the head.
        The infantry does not lie where it is necessary.

        She lies where she was forced to lie down. Otherwise, there is no point in lying down.
        Because even before getting up for a dash, the infantryman outlines a shelter where he will run.

        And getting up will fit under a direct shot. Headache do not go on the attack.
        This property is very useful against new ceramic body armor.

        There is no such property. Two bullets in one hole only from a ballistic barrel and then at 100 m. And not always.
        Well, at least it was admitted. Now tell me, stepping on the entrenched enemy from the mark "4" should you shoot? Or is it better with "P 0,3"?

        The commander will indicate the sight if there are no brains.
        Shooting errors can not kill each other, they overlap each other - they are summed. And the smaller each error will be, the less common.

        The total error is determined by the largest errors.
        Let's estimate. The attacking shooter fires at the head (sight P) from a distance of 250 m standing from a short stop with a single fire, the aiming point is under the target (the second case with the removal of TP down), the shooting is accompanied by the following errors:
        1. Guidance 1 etc. 0,25 m.
        2. Data preparation: a) vertical = lateral ~ 0,06 m (for STP in the center of the target due to the removal of the aiming point); b) for firing under the target, vertical = 0 (trajectory above the target), side = 0,06 m, systematic shift of the STP up 0,378 m.
        3. Dispersion for medium shooters at 250 m Bb1 = 0,45 m, Bb1 = 0,3 m.
        4. Equivalent target rectangle 0,245 * 0,408 meters.
        Calculation Results:
        1. For STP in the center of the target - 0,034
        2. To offset the STP from the center of the target by 0,378 m upwards - 0,03
        The difference is 1,13 times. For subsequent bullets in line, the difference will be practically indistinguishable because their dispersion is much larger.

        Actually, I disagree with you only in one thing - to remove the sight of P. You don’t have to remove anything anywhere, on the KMB the soldiers will be told about the excess of the trajectories and that it is first of all necessary to follow the orders of the commander. The commander said - sight 3, put 3 and do not be clever about the fact that the manual supposedly says different. And if the enemy runs 600 m, and the commander ordered - sight 7 and under the heel, then put 7 and aim under the heel.
        1. Svateev
          12 May 2016 16: 39
          0
          Quote: Droid
          All is correct. The main targets do not run and do not go on the attack, and the sight P is for shooting in defense.

          Sights (marks) for a direct shot are not divided for defense or for attack, but are divided by the height of the targets for which they are designed; check out the AK74 manual if you don't believe me.
          Quote: Droid
          I wrote in the article that AN-94 has:
          Celebrated for any purpose.

          What is "celebrated"?
          Quote: Droid
          To check this, you need to shoot at the shooting range not at the chest, but at the head targets.
          1. Head targets do not attack. They lay down and let them lie.

          Witty. For housewives.
          That is, those who go on the attack do not lie down, right? Is that how a rod of a "massive, high-speed" crowd was sent under all the destructive fire of automatic weapons? You have invented a good opponent for yourself, an easy one, just for your lightweight reasoning.
          Quote: Droid
          2. And they shot at the head.

          They shot a direct shot? And from what marks? And what is the probability of hitting?
          Quote: Droid
          She lies where she was forced to lie down.

          The silly commander - yes. And an intelligent commander before an attack draws a line outside the effective fire of the enemy, from which his subordinates begin to move in dashes from cover to cover. It is for this purpose that it is planned that they should not be forced to lie down on level ground without shelters. As you can see, your enemy commanders are also stupid, they don’t set such a line.
          Quote: Droid
          getting up will fit under a direct shot. Headache do not go on the attack.

          But the head shoot, and accurately, because they lie and from the stop. And with them it is necessary to conduct a fire duel: you are in them, and they are in you. Does this obvious consideration never occur to you?
          Quote: Droid
          Two bullets in one hole only from a ballistic barrel and then on 100 m.

          It’s also suitable for almost one hole, because as the manufacturers of such protection praise, it can withstand repeated hits, but no closer than 5-7cm from the first. That is, if the second hit is closer, then breaks.
          Quote: Droid
          The commander will indicate the sight if there are no brains.

          And what kind of sight should the commander point out? You have a mind - the board, advise the commander.
          Quote: Droid
          The total error is determined by the largest errors.

          Not true by all the mistakes. And if some errors begin to be excluded from the calculation, then this is the first sign of fraud with the calculations.
          1. Droid
            Droid 12 May 2016 18: 55
            0
            Sights (marks) for a direct shot are not divided for defense or for attack, but are divided by the height of the targets for which they are designed; check out the AK74 manual if you don't believe me.

            They don’t shoot at an attack of 400 m, therefore the sight 4 or P is not needed in the attack. I have the impression that the only document that you read is the manual, you do not want to recognize anything else. However, you are fiercely trying to fight the sight of P. I bring to your attention that there are 74 positions on the aiming rail of AK11. from 1 to 10 and P. You can set any sight at will, if someone does not have brains, the commander orders him. That's all.
            What is "celebrated"?

            Excellence is celebrated.
            That is, those who go on the attack do not go to bed, right?

            No. Lying on the attack do not go.
            They shot a direct shot? And from what marks? And what is the probability of hitting?

            Fit. They do not shoot at the head further than 200 m, respectively, and the 2 sight, because the AN-3 does not have a 94 sight. Excellence times in 2.
            But the head shoot, and accurately, because they lie and from the stop.

            So they shoot at them too.
            And with them it is necessary to conduct a fire duel:

            No duels. Shoot during dashes, when the enemy is lying down, change position and shoot at the next dash. Crush any attempts to rise.
            Almost fits into one hole too,

            There are no two bullets in the hole, neither exactly nor almost exactly.
            And what kind of sight should the commander point out?

            The right sight! Depending on the distance and goal.
            Not true by all the mistakes. And if some errors begin to be excluded from the calculation, then this is the first sign of fraud with the calculations.

            There is a sufficiency criterion. If you have one meter error and the other 0,1 meter, then the second, in the approximate calculations, can be ignored. The practical accuracy of the calculation will not be affected. Most importantly, the technique should be the same for everyone.
            1. Svateev
              12 May 2016 20: 00
              0
              Quote: Droid
              They don’t shoot in the attack on 400, therefore the 4 or P sight is not needed in the attack.

              Sights "4" or "P" for a direct shot are not suitable anywhere - neither in attack nor in defense. But from the "P 0,3" mark you can shoot both in attack and in defense.
              Quote: Droid
              the only document you read is a manual, you don’t want to recognize anything else

              Actually, at the end of the article, a list of references is given, as is customary in scientific articles. The list is far from just the AK74 manual. But "what else" I must admit, explain.
              Quote: Droid
              on the aiming strip of the AK74 11 positions. from 1 to 10 and P. You can set any scope as desired,

              Including "P", which will lead to a miss. That's why the "P" must be removed from the sight, now understand?
              And "P 0,3" must be entered because, as stated in the article:
              almost all mounted sights for AK-74 - collimator, optical, night, thermal imaging, etc. - do not have sighting marks smaller than “4” (400 m), for example, optical sights 1П29, 1П77, 1П78, night sight 1ПН93-2 AK-74 (Fig. 2) and others. On collimator sights, a single aiming mark is also reduced to a range of 400 m. That is, with mounted sights, the machine gunner does not even have the technical ability to shoot from a different mark than “400” at ranges up to 4m.

              Quote: Droid
              Lying on the attack do not go.

              Are you really that primitive? Or now they simply rested in their error, and afterwards you will begin to reason sensibly?
              The attack is a long and multidimensional process, and until the stage "Hurray!" and - with your chest on machine guns, there is also a stage of rapprochement by dashes and lying behind shelters. And even when the maneuvering group "Hurray!" rushes to machine guns (growth targets), then the fire group covers them (head targets). And the defenders must be able to hit not only the height, but also the head.
              Quote: Droid
              They shot a direct shot? And from what marks? And what is the probability of hitting?
              Fit. They do not shoot at the head further than 200 m, respectively, and the 2 sight, because the AN-3 does not have a 94 sight. Excellence times in 2.

              Yours _at, Droid! Do you not understand that fully and absolutely confirm my calculations and conclusions of the article? !!
              1) That's right, with the AN-94 you can shoot straight at the head only from "2", because there is no "3" on the sight (this is indicated in the article), and with "4" the better accuracy worsens the hit probability even more than that of the A545 ...
              2) And here if you create "P 94" on the AN-0,3, then we get the same high hit probability ("every 2") not up to 200m, but up to 357m!
              So why are you buzzing against an article? !!!
            2. Svateev
              12 May 2016 20: 06
              0
              Quote: Droid
              So they shoot at them too.

              Here, and you understand that you need to shoot at the dead infantry. But what you need to shoot for sure, don’t you understand?
              Quote: Droid
              No duels. Shoot during dashes, when the enemy is lying down, change position and shoot at the next dash.

              Your beautiful version, God bless! And in life it doesn’t turn out so beautifully: changing a position means temporarily leaving your sector without shelling, and substituting yourself for a dash. We have to duel, even crack.
              Quote: Droid
              There are no two bullets in the hole, neither exactly nor almost exactly.

              Something you raised the doubt that you are really familiar with the AN-94.
              Quote: Droid
              The right sight! Depending on the distance and goal.

              Yeah, that is, with the exact setting of the range. You offer to refuse a direct shot. Then explain, and how should the commander determine the range to the targets? And how do you have time to indicate the top ten subordinates (com. Units) of their purpose and range to them in battle ?! And how to indicate - in voice ?!

              Quote: Droid
              If you have one meter error, and the other 0,1 meter, then the second, in the approximate calculations, you can not take into account

              Well, and recalculate your calculation for the sight "P 0,3" ?!
        2. Svateev
          12 May 2016 16: 56
          -1
          I’m saying you are cheating:
          Quote: Droid
          2. Data preparation: a) vertical = lateral ~ 0,06 m (for STP in the center of the target due to the removal of the aiming point); b) for firing under the target, vertical = 0 (trajectory above the target), side = 0,06 m, systematic shift of the STP up 0,378 m.

          You compared a shot with an accurate aiming of the sight, which is characterized by an error in determining the range (you have a vertical = lateral ~ 0,06m) with a direct shot FROM MARK "4", which has an excess of 0,38m at a distance of 200m. I.e, compared WRONG DIRECT SHOT, which I propose to abandon.
          The STP of a direct shot from the "P 0,3" mark will not go beyond the main target at any range, and at a distance of 200 m you can take an excess of 0,3 m. And count.
          1. Droid
            Droid 12 May 2016 19: 00
            0
            Everything is right there. In the first case, the STP is in the center of the target, in the second, the shift of the STP is 0,38 meters up relative to the center, and aiming under the edge of the target.
            With a total vertical deflection of the bullet of 0,5 meters, the systematic shift of the STP by 0,38 meters does not play a significant role (for the head).
            1. Svateev
              12 May 2016 20: 32
              +1
              Quote: Droid
              Everything is right there.

              For a direct shot from the "4" mark. And I propose to compare it with a direct shot from the P 0,3 mark.
              Well, I’m writing clearly, why the first time you don’t understand?
              1. Droid
                Droid 13 May 2016 07: 22
                -2
                Indeed, why do not you understand? The difference between an accurate shot and the P scope leaves 0,004 (4 thousandths). That's all. Your P 0,3 will not be better than an accurate sight anyway, and the difference of 0,004 is about nothing.
                1. Svateev
                  13 May 2016 08: 31
                  0
                  Quote: Droid
                  Your P 0,3 will never be better than an accurate sight,

                  Why then don't you count "P 0,3"? Since you are so sure that he will not be better?
                  I know why. Because you know perfectly well where you will cheat - add your indiscriminate data preparation error to the direct shot. But with a direct shot, the main part of this "data preparation error" - the error in determining the range - is absent. That is, it is impossible to apply the error of preparing data for a direct shot, and you realized that I would catch you on this. And without data preparation error "P 0,3" even in your approximate calculations will turn out much better than "P". I emphasize, much better.
                  And you know that. And take the discussion aside. Cheating.
        3. Svateev
          12 May 2016 17: 05
          0
          Quote: Droid
          Actually, I disagree with you only in one thing - to remove the sight of P. You don’t have to remove anything anywhere, on the KMB they will tell the soldiers ... we must first follow the orders of the commander. The commander said - the 3 sight, put 3 and do not be clever about the fact that the manual supposedly says different.

          1) Go to the nearest military unit and offer there "not to be smart about what is written in the manual." They will look like a fool and do the right thing. Instructions are not written to be broken.
          2) Do not agree to remove "P", but agree that it is necessary to shoot with "3" ?! Are you brought up by the Chinese Komsomol, or what? It was there that they brought up their character, specially creating difficulties for themselves, and then courageously overcoming them.
          Let's not be like idiots! It is necessary to replace an ineffective aiming mark with an effective one and bring the target situation of the shooting ranges closer to a real battle.
          1. Droid
            Droid 12 May 2016 19: 03
            0
            Who will they look at? In the manual there is no requirement to shoot with P.'s sight There is nothing to break. And fire control is not in the manual.
            It is necessary to replace an ineffective aiming mark with an effective

            What are you going to replace? I bring to your attention that on the AK bracket, sight 3 has always been. You can’t replace 3 with 3. And you just don’t need to remove the sight P either.
            1. Svateev
              12 May 2016 20: 37
              -1
              Quote: Droid
              There is no requirement in the manual to shoot P.

              There is. I first pointed out the article to you - 155, and then I even quoted it!
              Well, you can’t dissemble so openly, Droid!
              Quote: Droid
              What are you going to replace?

              Yes, an ineffective label "P" for an effective "P 0,3"!
              Well, what, at every comment you forget what happened in the previous one ?!
              Quote: Droid
              And just so remove the sight P, too, is not necessary.

              And just like that, you also need to remove. Because the more effective label "4" remains. And by the way, the "P" has already been removed from the mounted sights, this is also indicated in the article. And forgot it?
  26. Massik
    Massik 12 May 2016 16: 18
    +4
    Who spotted "Abakan" in the parade? wink Just got from the 90s laughing I have no idea when "these" will reach ....
    A similar article was a year or two ago, about the defeat of the head target. From Comrade Svateev, sort of. At today's standards for the consumption of cartridges for training, to achieve the defeat of the A4 sheet at 200x meters, I consider it impossible, even with a tricked sight, even without.
    1. Svateev
      12 May 2016 17: 13
      +1
      Quote: Marssik
      A similar article was a year or two ago,

      Yes, my article was, here:
      http://topwar.ru/34890-avtomatchik-dolzhen-i-mozhet-porazhat-golovnuyu-figuru.ht
      ml
      http://topwar.ru/34891-avtomatchik-dolzhen-i-mozhet-porazhat-golovnuyu-figuru-ch

      ast-2.html #
      But this article analyzes already new automata.
      Quote: Marssik
      At today's standards for the consumption of cartridges for training, to achieve the defeat of the A4 sheet at 200x meters, I consider it impossible, even with a fancy sight, even without.

      But after all, with the wrong sight, it is impossible to achieve defeat even if you increase the consumption of cartridges for training in 10 times. Well, do not get!
      1. Massik
        Massik 13 May 2016 17: 24
        0
        Quote: Svateev
        But after all, with the wrong sight, it is impossible to achieve defeat even if you increase the consumption of cartridges for training in 10 times. Well, do not get!
        We will, if we teach correctly. When a trainee at 100m cannot collect a clear heap, then what can we say about longer distances. When I served, there were almost a third of such people, and this is in the "spetsnaz" ...
        1. Svateev
          13 May 2016 19: 58
          0
          Quote: Marssik
          Hit, if properly taught.

          Well, if you teach correctly, as suggested in this article - straight from the label "P 0,3" - then we will get wink
  27. xBoris
    xBoris 12 May 2016 16: 56
    +2
    Interesting article.
    The emphasis is on statistics. In principle - competently.
    However, in my opinion, a separate shooter and statistics are not very comparable things. It is like an electron and its properties - wave and particle .. wink
    I believe that the exercise for assessing the effectiveness of sights should be changed.
    To bring, so to speak, to a real battle.
    Maybe it’s worth evaluating the defeat of several head targets by the separation forces for a time with a fixed number of rounds ..? Here you and combat coordination .. and the distribution of the density of fire ..?
    1. Svateev
      12 May 2016 17: 21
      0
      Quote: xBoris
      separate shooter and statistics - things are not very comparable.

      But the platoon, let alone the company, let alone the battalion, fully confirm the statistics. Well, if only their commander did not order to spit on instructions and shoot "in the sun."
  28. 2nd 12th
    2nd 12th 12 May 2016 17: 06
    +2
    Not even the most super-duper sight (unless it is like in a tank with a ballistic computer) does not teach a person to shoot. Through the sight, a person can only see the target better. And everything else (breathing, pulling the hook, uniform and correct application, etc.) needs to be learned. And not one month.
    When I was a sniper (acting) from Saigi MK from an open sight at 100m I got into 2 glass bottles of 3 shots. But this is years of training!

    And such articles are written by those who themselves only shot at the shooting range. They would go on a simple hunt - everything would be more useful for business and for concepts.
    1. Svateev
      12 May 2016 17: 25
      +1
      Quote: 2-th12-th
      Not even the most super-duper scope ... will teach a person how to shoot.

      Well, some, indeed, cannot be taught anything. They are talking about STP in the contours of the target, and they are about breathing and smoothness of descent at a distance of 100m. Athletes, damn it, damn, they don’t even think about shooting at different ranges. At 100 there were also happiness - for the rest of my life.
  29. avdkrd
    avdkrd 12 May 2016 18: 04
    +1
    K-12 and A-545 with modern sights will show combat effectiveness no better than the AK-74, since on average the probability of hitting will increase insignificantly - by 9%
    Afftor like with a mosk? 9% is not significant? Stop shagging your grandmother !!!!
    New sights are definitely necessary, better collimators and optics, but just as important is just being able to shoot! Not to be like the Africans, but simply to be able to shoot. Convenient, reliable, but not the most accurate weapon is better than the most accurate, but unreliable and large (not a sniper weapon). Even AK-74 and 47 are better than m-16 (14), which is confirmed in their preferences by the "gray geese". In principle, Kalashnikov and AEK lacked only the top bar of the "Picatinny". With a change in the receiver cover, this drawback is eliminated, since the problem of sights is the same goes away.
    I would take AEK for myself, but the AK-12 is also a decent unit. It is necessary to look at reliability in critical conditions (the Arctic desert). For automatic weapons in a big war, this will be more critical than accuracy.
    1. Svateev
      12 May 2016 18: 44
      +1
      Quote: avdkrd
      Afftor like with a mosk?

      The author is fine. And here you have problems.
      Quote: avdkrd
      9% is not significant?

      Yes, it’s not essential to replace automatic machines.
      Quote: avdkrd
      just as important is just being able to shoot! Not to be like Africans, but just to be able to shoot.

      The whole article is about how to be able to shoot. And as always appears with a club with a statement: yes, this is all nonsense, you just need to be able to shoot! That's just able to ...
      Being able to shoot, you know, is not at all easy. Brains must have.
      1. black
        black 12 May 2016 20: 08
        +1
        I don’t know where you studied. But obviously missed classes. I have an offer for you. Would you and your P0,3 go to GRAU? There you will be precisely indicated the direction of movement. To the textbook. And then, for sure, the teachers did not make you count the number of bullets per running meter.
        1. Svateev
          12 May 2016 20: 49
          0
          Quote: black
          Would you and your P0,3 go to GRAU?

          Somehow you disrespect the GRAU. Or have you just been sent from there?
          There are no specific thoughts in your comments, only general phrases. Therefore, let me consider you an ordinary troll.
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 12 May 2016 18: 45
      +6
      You understand, do not jump over your head. And the limit is technical dispersion.

      You can consistently upgrade sights for existing small arms. In the end, you will come to the point beyond which even a multiple increase in their quality, accuracy, and cost will not yield anything. Barrier of technical dispersion of the "barrel-ammunition" system
      It's the same with training. Can be made from a fighter as a terminator. He will disappear from morning until evening in the shooting range and at the range. But there will come a line beyond which no "skill to shoot" will be able to overcome the barrier of technical dispersal.

      The converse is also true. If a weapon with less dispersion appears, then this potential must be fully realized. And not only super-duper arrows, which are few by default in the troops. And average fighters. Including specialists who, according to their main occupation, will not be able to drive them out like infantry after 250 with a penny of hours of fire preparation for the training period. They have about 10 times less, 25-30 hours.
      This is exactly what the "author" writes about, who has the "mosk" in place. Because he thinks about such seemingly trivial things ...
  30. chelovektapok
    chelovektapok 12 May 2016 18: 11
    0
    And do not confuse some "hunters" for example ... Requirements for your "Kalash carbine" with a military weapon? Will the commander be puzzled by the commander in a real situation at 500 m SVD, SKS from the bowels of Soviet armored vehicles, Mosinka with primitive optics with an elastic band on the eyepiece .... Ethnic Evenk, for example, without optics .... There are tools for the appropriate work ..... No need to blame the dentist for not getting it perforator in the hollow of the tooth .... Can he change the tool?
  31. Castor oil
    Castor oil 12 May 2016 20: 07
    +1
    We need a new weapon, and new sighting systems for them - no options.
    1. black
      black 12 May 2016 20: 56
      0
      And preferably a new cartridge. From him and dance.
      1. Svateev
        12 May 2016 21: 22
        0
        Quote: black
        And preferably a new cartridge.

        And without a new cartridge, we will not improve anything. From the principle. We won’t even do that, what can be done. May it be worse for us!
        1. black
          black 12 May 2016 23: 43
          -1
          So what about the number of bullets per running meter? The first course of the combined arms school. Or were they hiding on the capters?
          1. Svateev
            13 May 2016 08: 38
            -1
            Quote: black
            so what about the number of bullets per running meter?

            Is that all they learned? Because that's just what you ask?
            But what about you calculating at least one indicator, which I have calculated in dozens of articles?
            "Chernenky", you need to adequately assess your opponent!
            1. black
              black 13 May 2016 09: 31
              0
              And what to count you? The diagnosis of major divisions is already clear. We must start with grandaxin. Half a pill in the morning. What is the main firepower of a motorized rifle squad? The armament of the BMP. Check out the statistics. On the battlefield, small arms have long given way to explosive and shrapnel wounds. What is this cute shootout at 400 meters, in the spirit of Khalkhin Gol? Yes, if I put my people 400 meters from the enemy, then I live for a MAXIMUM, 10 minutes. Then they'll cover me with mines and sprinkle me with the AGS. I had an "outstanding" fighter. I opened up from the group twice and got into the opu. They threw the enemy in the trenches with VOGs and then dragged them in. And the distances were smaller, they knew how to shoot. But this is a fight. Where did you get 30 centimeters from? Why not 25 or 32? What the hell is this? Are you fighting on a salt lake with a perfectly flat surface? The system of fire in defense, why is it being built? Landmarks, fire cards, areas of concentrated fire, lines of fire? Where is the hope for personal shooting skills?
              1. Svateev
                17 May 2016 20: 34
                0
                Quote: black
                The fire system is on the defensive, why is it being built? ... Where is the hope for personal shooting skills?

                All sofa "practitioners" end the dispute with this rubbish about the fire system and the uselessness of small arms. And they immediately show that they are theorists. Because no real practitioner will give up one more opportunity to stay alive. And how this "system of fire" works is known: it will work, and then it will not, then the artillery, mortars and other dowries will work, otherwise you will not get it and rely only on yourself. And generally speaking the habit of hoping for an uncle (system, complex and other smarts) is not characteristic of a professional military man.
                Quote: black
                Yes, if I put my people in 400 meters from the enemy, then I live, MAXIMUM, 10 minutes.

                And if you don’t put it and you will continue to put it on your forehead in automatic fire, then how much will you live? In Novorossia they are also fighting much closer than 400, the situation is different.
                Quote: black
                You have to start with grandaxin. Half a tablet in the morning.

                And what is it? I don’t know. And you seem personally familiar with this.
      2. Castor oil
        Castor oil 13 May 2016 00: 33
        0
        Quote: black
        And preferably a new cartridge. From him and dance.

        This would be an ideal option in the complex.
  32. tolancop
    tolancop 12 May 2016 21: 08
    +2
    I'll make a reservation right away - I'm not a specialist in shooting and weapons in general, but in shooting in particular. In his lifetime he used up 30 7,62 cartridges and the same number of PMs. But as a child, I shot enough from a slingshot. What does the slingshot have to do with it? And besides, after several hundred "shots" you are already shooting practically without aiming - your hands know which position to take to ensure a hit. You need to train, shoot. There is a good saying - "To learn to swim, you have to get into the water." In my opinion, this applies to everything. Set any scope, but without training there will be no normal result.
    Although a good sight, of course it will not be superfluous. Another point. On the VO site a year or two ago, the material of one specialist who fought in a famous place passed. And there he was engaged in firearms. It turned out that a lot of riflemen were simply not shot properly ...
    Why am I? ... And the fact that the problem of ensuring accurate shooting is multi-faceted and you can’t do nothing just by improving the design of the sight. Only in the complex - design-execution-shooter.
  33. Old old
    Old old 13 May 2016 00: 17
    +2
    New machines are useless without new sights

    Don't shoot with standard sights? Linking the accuracy and sight in "one bottle" is also original.
    Easy juggling with a picture of fighters on the ground and behind the parapet is perplexing. The M-16 sighting line is much higher than AK and, all other things being equal (stores 30 pat.), A fighter with M-16 will be a higher target.
    Zeroing, butt, shooting - the rest is "from the evil one." A bad shooter is always guilty of sight (or cartridges).
    IMHO. Advertising and promotion of the "non-discrete passive sight patented in Russia".
    1. Svateev
      13 May 2016 09: 07
      -1
      Quote: Nursing Old
      Easy juggling with a picture of fighters on the ground and behind the parapet is perplexing.

      I explain again, personally for you. And only out of respect for our common flag on your screen saver.
      The M-16 sighting line has nothing to do with it. The picture compares the height of the fighter behind the parapet and the fighter without the parapet. And it is shown which of them is indicated by which target.
      I took the fighter for the parapet from the American manual on M-16 because he is a potential adversary. But I did not take a fighter without a parapet from the same instruction because they are below 0,5m. Due to what they achieved this, it is indicated in detail in my article on the same site:
      "http://topwar.ru/34890-avtomatchik-dolzhen-i-mozhet-porazhat-golovnuyu-fig
      uru.html "
      A soldier corresponding to a height of 0,5 m is only in our manual, and from there I took him to show for what purpose the "P" sight on AK74 was optimized.
      So there is no fraud, you came up with it.
      Quote: Nursing Old
      Zeroing, butt, shooting - the rest is "from the evil one."

      The sighting of a machine gun exists only among illiterate housewives. The targeting of the military is the definition of practical shooting of the sight, from which you get on landmarks on the battlefield. It has taken up defense and, if conditions permit, with practical shooting you check from which sight and with what aiming point you get out of the hollow where the enemy will most likely lie down, and out of that bush, and this stone, etc.
      And what housewives call shooting a machine gun from the military is called bringing the weapon to normal combat. So, all the calculations in the article are made on the assumption that the assault rifles are brought to normal combat, as it should be. Therefore, your maxim about "sighting" is out of place.
      And do not limit yourself to the expression "the rest of the evil one." By doing this, you yourself are putting barriers to your brain. What for?
  34. saygon66
    saygon66 13 May 2016 00: 29
    0
    - Do I understand correctly, the practical verification of the calculations given in the article was not carried out?
    1. Svateev
      13 May 2016 09: 17
      +1
      Quote: saygon66
      practical verification of the calculations given in the article was not carried out?

      They were carried out by special forces and repeatedly. But I am only told the general conclusion: "From the mark" 4 "the probability of hitting is really insufficient, but from the mark" 3 "the submachine gunners hit confidently." And what kind of hit rate indicators were received is "information for official use", you know.
      Here they serve, they can know this information, but I, who saw it, justified and calculated it all, in reserve and according to their logic, just went for a walk, I shouldn’t know!
      I have formulated recommendations for conducting experimental firing for reliable verification of these calculations. There is nothing complicated in shooting. I will provide these recommendations to any power structure, if only the results of the shooting would then go to the GRAU.
      1. saygon66
        saygon66 13 May 2016 13: 23
        0
        - Thanks, got it! Found your patent for a non-discrete sights - very unusual!
        - And, another question "from the locksmith" - Reducing the step of the clamp of the sight will not solve the problem?
        1. Svateev
          18 May 2016 20: 54
          0
          Quote: saygon66
          Reducing the step of the clamp of the sight will not solve the problem?

          No, he will not decide. Already tried, the SVD range to 300m - 100m, and then reduced to 50m. This decrease in the distance step helps to keep the STP in the contours of the head target only up to 400m. Starting from 425, again at each half of the step you aim at the center of the target, and the STP is either below the target (if you set the previous sight) or above the goal (if you set the next sight).
          Quote: saygon66
          Found your patent for a non-discrete sights - very unusual!

          Actually just a step forward from the American ACOG.
  35. papik09
    papik09 13 May 2016 03: 54
    0
    Smart instructors have always taught: at a short distance (100-200 meters) you need to aim "under the bleed", that is, BELOW, then the bullets get there - where they need to, and not "into the milk." This applies to AKM and AK-74. Others I don’t know - I didn’t shoot. Maybe I'm wrong? Correct. hi
    1. Svateev
      13 May 2016 09: 30
      0
      Quote: papik09
      you need to aim "under the bleed", that is, BELOW,

      The bleed is not lower, this is exactly the way it is indicated in article 155 of the AK74 manual - "to the lower edge of the target".
      And below the lower edge of the target is when there is free space between the front sight and the lower edge (edge) of the target. By such a displacement of the aiming point, they tried to raise the probability of hitting the head target from the "P" mark after the first use of the AK74 in battles (in Afghanistan). And at ranges of 150-300m it helps - the STP drops below and hits the target. But at ranges from 300m to 440m, as well as at distances closer than 100m, this method drives bullets into the ground in front of the target.
      The only correct way is a normal direct shot (we always aim at the lower edge of the target (under the bleed)), but from the correct mark "P 0,3", where the height of the trajectory is 0,3 m, and not 0,5 m, as now from the mark "P ".
  36. mpzss
    mpzss 13 May 2016 08: 40
    +1
    Quote: papik09
    Smart instructors have always taught: at a short distance (100-200 meters) you need to aim "under the bleed", that is, BELOW, then the bullets get there - where they need to, and not "into the milk." This applies to AKM and AK-74. Others I don’t know - I didn’t shoot. Maybe I'm wrong? Correct. hi

    Totally agree with you!
    I served 1990-1992, then there were no sights on the AK-74, except for the regular one and no problems with hitting the target! Yes, the first two or three shots were shot, but then everything was on target!
    I served in the Border Military, a shooting range every two days at least, and even every day (the deputy for the military unit was a golden man!) Each time at least three or four horns were fired, there were no problems with cartridges, but now I’m not ashamed to say that all the bullets hit the head on the chest target ... But this is not the main thing, I want to say that when developing a new weapon, the designers are not stupid people either and they understand that the new weapon also implies a new sight, yes, it is constructively possible and same, but it is NEW !!!
    And AN-98, maybe he’s good, didn’t shoot, so I won’t say anything about him, but he is UNIFICALLY more complicated than Kalashnikov, AN-98 has the right to exist, but in certain structures.
    By the way, it was a rule at our outpost to shoot ONLY QUEUE, that is, at least two rounds and believe me, after 1,5 months of shooting both rounds flew at the target, they just taught us well to aim! If a single shot was fired from the barrel during the test shots, then the entire squad was punished, and Zamboy was strict, this is at least 5 km. with full calculation and then digging trenches in full profile for a while ... so everyone fired ONLY a burst of two rounds. It could have been more, but then there would not have been enough cartridges, because was the principle of xnumx targets - xnumx cartridges!
    Therefore, we conclude - LEARN THE MATCH AND EXERCISE FREQUENTLY!
    1. Svateev
      13 May 2016 09: 56
      +1
      Quote: mpzss
      Totally agree with you!

      Let's see if you really agree.
      So, "daddy09" is talking about aiming below the bottom of the target. And you say that:
      Quote: mpzss
      I’m not ashamed to say that all the bullets hit the head on the chest target ...

      So, bullets will hit the head in the chest with a direct shot from "P" only in one case - if you aim exactly at the lower edge of the target at a distance of 200-250m. If you lowered the aiming point below the lower edge of the target, you would hit the target's chest or even lower, but not in the head.
      Quote: mpzss
      just us WELL taught to aim!

      You were poorly taught, since you don’t even know that you were aiming not lower, but precisely at the lower edge. And the turn in the 3 cartridge is much better than in the 2 cartridge, since for all Kalashnikovs the second bullet goes higher and to the right of the first, already at a distance of 100 it lies above the left shoulder of the target. And the third bullet again goes to the target. So out of two rounds we get 50%, and out of three - 67%.
      And this
      Quote: mpzss
      and believe me, after 1,5 months of shooting both rounds flew at the target, we were just well taught to aim!

      I don’t believe it, because a whole company shot at me, and I myself checked it several times. And aiming has nothing to do with it, such dispersion is a feature of Kalashnikov’s design.
  37. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 13 May 2016 13: 08
    +1
    They write about it all the time, but apparently still there.
  38. muhacece
    muhacece 13 May 2016 19: 47
    -2
    garbage everything needs to be done with bullets with an infrared homing head so that even a randomly released one finds its warm body, this will be know-how in the defense industry and not a machine gun on an UAZ covered with a tarpaulin correctly I say comrades ensigns
    Glory to Kabaev
  39. jonht
    jonht 7 October 2016 00: 44
    0
    Thank you for the detailed article, in the army at the shooting range (PV) officers taught us when firing from the AK-74m to always aim as low as possible at the target at distances of more than 100 meters and in the center to this distance.