Rifle accuracy

[Slargos]

It's been bugging me lately, after a discussion about the accuracy of various carbines where a particularly moronic claim was made which I couldn't really counter with hard data.

I know that it's largely a function of the type of sight, and the ammunition, but is there any data available for how wide groupings you can typically expect from various rifles with ye old standard military ammunition? I mean, I know an AK47 is less accurate than an M4, but exactly how big is the difference?

No matter how skilled the sharpshooter, he obviously can't expect to hit the same spot with every shot after a certain distance. What's the spread?

Siegy?

[Razgovory]

What was the claim?  Accuracy wasn't a big deal for the Soviets since they believed that it was impossible to aim accurately in combat and instead relied on mass fire.  Since most of their soldiers were conscripts, they weren't going to be that good with a rifle anyway.  It's not really fair to compare it to an M4 which is a much newer weapon (and a different caliber).  The US has traditionally taken the opposite route and has been somewhat obsessed with accuracy.  A fairer comparison to the AK47 was its contemporary the M14.  The military was unsatisfied with the weapon and replaced it the M16 a decade or so later.  It was accurate, but not for bursts and the weapon was to large for jungle fighting in Vietnam, which goes to show you that accuracy isn't everything.  I think a weapon is best judged by how well it fits the army using it.  The M4 is good for the US, but wouldn't be good for say a middle eastern country and a weapon that is good for a third world dictatorship like Syria wouldn't be good for a the US.

[The Brain]

The Swedish K has no spread.

[Malthus]

I say we test various carbines "William Tell" style - with an apple on Slargos's head. 

[Caliga]

What was the claim?  Accuracy wasn't a big deal for the Soviets since they believed that it was impossible to aim accurately in combat and instead relied on mass fire. 

Didn't the Soviets have snipers armed with Dragunovs embedded in each platoon of the Red Army?   I seem to recall that being the case.  That tells me that they thought at least some of their infantry were capable of aiming accurately in combat.

[11B4V]

It's been bugging me lately, after a discussion about the accuracy of various carbines where a particularly moronic claim was made which I couldn't really counter with hard data.

I know that it's largely a function of the type of sight, and the ammunition, but is there any data available for how wide groupings you can typically expect from various rifles with ye old standard military ammunition? I mean, I know an AK47 is less accurate than an M4, but exactly how big is the difference?

No matter how skilled the sharpshooter, he obviously can't expect to hit the same spot with every shot after a certain distance. What's the spread?

Siegy?

With the shooter being equal.
With standard Milspec m4 ammo you can generally get 1.5 MOA. AK's are a mixed bag. Seen/fired some that couldnt get under 4 MOA, but depends on the condition of the weapon.

Oh, the m14 is a lovely weapon.

[11B4V]

Also, training of the shooter plays a big part.

[Razgovory]

What was the claim?  Accuracy wasn't a big deal for the Soviets since they believed that it was impossible to aim accurately in combat and instead relied on mass fire. 

Didn't the Soviets have snipers armed with Dragunovs embedded in each platoon of the Red Army?   I seem to recall that being the case.  That tells me that they thought at least some of their infantry were capable of aiming accurately in combat.

Yeah, those were to supplement the squad.  Ideally a sniper is not being shot at while he is taking aim and shooting at someone.  Either he has the element of surprise or is to far away for the enemy to effectively engage him.

[Siege]

It's been bugging me lately, after a discussion about the accuracy of various carbines where a particularly moronic claim was made which I couldn't really counter with hard data.

I know that it's largely a function of the type of sight, and the ammunition, but is there any data available for how wide groupings you can typically expect from various rifles with ye old standard military ammunition? I mean, I know an AK47 is less accurate than an M4, but exactly how big is the difference?

No matter how skilled the sharpshooter, he obviously can't expect to hit the same spot with every shot after a certain distance. What's the spread?

Siegy?

With the shooter being equal.
With standard Milspec m4 ammo you can generally get 1.5 MOA. AK's are a mixed bag. Seen/fired some that couldnt get under 4 MOA, but depends on the condition of the weapon.

Oh, the m14 is a lovely weapon.

1.5 MOA with an M4?
You must be speaking of SF Mods weapons.
The standard M4 in service the US Army (FORSCOM, not SOCOM) can only hold a 3 MOA shot group.

Slargos, the M4 is a 3 MOA weapon.
An MOA (minute of an angle) is nothing more than 1/60th of an 1 degree angle.
A circle got 360 degrees, then 1 degree angle got 60 minutes of an angle.
What this means in practice, is that the M4, at 3 MOA at 100m holds a shot group of 3 inches from the point of aim (a 6 inches diameter circle)
At 200m is 6 inches, at 300m is 9 inches, at 400m is 12 inches, and at 500m is 15 inches from the point of aim, in a 30 inches diameter circle.

This is how accurate the weapon is, and does not take shooter error into account.
At 500m, you fire 5 rounds with an M4 and the rounds will be inside a 30 inches circle, and you cannot predict where inside that circle the rounds will impact.
Since the average human is 19 inches from shoulder to shoulder, you could easily miss it completely if firing one round, but unlikely with 5 rounds.

The M24 on the other hand, 7.62x51 NATO, is a one MOA gun.
This means at 100m a 1" shot group, at 200m a 2" group, at 300m a 3" group, and so on untill holding at 1000m a 10" group from the point of aim, meaning all the 5 rounds within a 20" diameter circle. As you can see, without shooter error, there is no reason to miss a human size target at 1000m with an M24.

You also have to keep in mind that all weapons lose minage with range, meaning they will not hold whatever MOAs they are rated at, as range increases.
The M4 with a 14.5" barrel loses its minage dramatically pass 500m.
The M24 with a 24" barrel can hold it perfectly up to 800m, and slowly starts to lose minage. This loss increases noticialbe pass 1000m.
This is why the M24 is rated for 800m, but you can shoot accurate up to 1000m shooter dependent.
I have shot human sized targets up to 1200m in training with the M24, but those were not first shot hits, because the element of luck is now predominant. The shot group is just too big.

For example, look at the M9 pistol. With a 6" barrel and low powered 9mm rounds, it is only effective up to 50m.
Does this means that if you get hit with a 9mm round at 100m, the round is just going to bounce off?
Of course not, it will kill you depending of where it hits you, despite the low velocity.
What happens though, is that because the M9 is so short barreled, the bullets are gonna do a funnel effect pass 50m, with the minage and the shot group widening wildly out of proportion, because the M9 cannot hold its minage with range. You cannot predict where the rounds are going to hit.

Accurate barrels begin at 20 inches, and the accuraced standard is 24 inches. Pass this lenght it does not add accuracy.
This are the barrel lenghts at which a weapon can maintain its minage with distance.
Anything under 20 inches loses the minage at shorter ranges.

And this is just the accuracy of the weapon.
Now you have to add a lot of shit, what we call the variables.
Windage, elevation, tempeture, altitud, ammunition quality, ammunition propellant load, ammunition ballistic properties, bullet weight (grains), visibility, expousure of the target, movement of the target, etc.

Look at the M4 shooting the standard M855, 62 grains, Green Tip ammo.
The ballistics of this round are pretty stable.
At 25m and 300m the bullet will be at exactly the same point of aim, but because the bullet have a high trajectory arc, at 160m it will be 7 inches higher from the point of aim with the longer barreled M16, and 9 inches higher from the point of aim with the short barreled M4.

As you can see, your point of aim have to be adjusted at diferent ranges, otherwise you can easily miss the target.

[Siege]

What was the claim?  Accuracy wasn't a big deal for the Soviets since they believed that it was impossible to aim accurately in combat and instead relied on mass fire. 

Didn't the Soviets have snipers armed with Dragunovs embedded in each platoon of the Red Army?   I seem to recall that being the case.  That tells me that they thought at least some of their infantry were capable of aiming accurately in combat.

The SVD is a 2 MOA weapon. It is not a real sniper weapon, but rather an SDM (squad designated marksman) weapon, similar to our M110.

With accuraced/sniper ammo it can hold the 2 MOA up to 800m. However, the scope is only 4 power, similar to our ACOGs sights for the M4, way short of our 10 power scopes standard in both the M24 and M110.

Of course, most Dragunovs in Iraq and Afghanistan fire only the standard 7.62x54 ammo, not the accuraced ammo.

And yeah, the ruskies claim that the SVD can shoot up to 1200m. They also claim the AK47 is accurate at 800m.

[derspiess]

Yeah, those were to supplement the squad.  Ideally a sniper is not being shot at while he is taking aim and shooting at someone.  Either he has the element of surprise or is to far away for the enemy to effectively engage him.

AFAIK the Soviets stopped emphasizing marksmanship for the rank & file around the end of WWII.  Prior to that, they were obsessed with marksmanship training.  With the way Soviet infantry was best used (overwhelming numbers, armed with submachineguns), they eventually figured out that it was a bit of a waste to over-train marksmanship. 

Having said that, the AK is 'accurate enough' for soldiers who take aimed shots.  I can get a 5" group at 100m with mine.  I could do a lot better with an M16A2, but I wouldn't feel helpless with an AK.

Slarg: AFAIK what makes the AK less accurate than the M-16/M-4 rifles is with the way the weight & recoil are distributed/balanced.  The AK has a light, stamped metal receiver and a huge, heavy gas piston that pushes the bolt back. The M-16/M-4 has a lot more weight balance, and has no piston whatsoever (unless you consider the bolt carrier itself a piston).

[Neil]

The 16"/50 Mark 7 was a fantastically accurate rifle, especially with Mark 13 radar fire control.

[Scipio]

The 16"/50 Mark 7 was a fantastically accurate rifle, especially with Mark 13 radar fire control.

Stipulated; however, required greater than squad deployment to effectuate sans floating mount, thus, a nullity in this discussion.

[Neil]

The 16"/50 Mark 7 was a fantastically accurate rifle, especially with Mark 13 radar fire control.

Stipulated; however, required greater than squad deployment to effectuate sans floating mount, thus, a nullity in this discussion.

I suppose you're right.  Even a single gun mounted for coast defence would probably require the equivalent of a platoon to man it effectively.

[dps]

The 16"/50 Mark 7 was a fantastically accurate rifle, especially with Mark 13 radar fire control.

Stipulated; however, required greater than squad deployment to effectuate sans floating mount, thus, a nullity in this discussion.

I suppose you're right.  Even a single gun mounted for coast defence would probably require the equivalent of a platoon to man it effectively.

More like a company I'd think, but I'm just guessing.