notes from a scavenger ....

even in this day of inflated ammunition costs, some people leave about 60% of the cost of a cartridge on the ground behind them after they are done w/ their shooting, in the form of brass cartridge cases.

i spend a lot of time at the shooting range, as i am retired, and as i am developing an intermediate infantry round, as well as sharpening my long distance shooting skills.  so, i scavenge brass cartridge cases when i am done.

i also observe the coming and goings of my fellow shooters, and draw inferences from their "leavings."

i will tell you these observations, as i think them pertinent to coming events.  and, i also believe that what i observe in my fellows indicates that they, too, believe that there will be "coming events," and that they prepare for them.--

1.)  the majority of the spent 5.56x45mm nato cartridge cases that i find, (that's .223 remington to you civilian types), are found at the 25 yard target standards.

2.)  the majority of the shooters using the 5.56x45mm nato ammunition that i observe, and they are shooting them in ar-15 type rifles, gussied up in one form or another, are also found at the 25 yard shooting standards.  when i inquire as to their activities, they uniformly reply that they are just "sighting in," some of them observing that they've just bought their rifles, ... , "just because."

now, the 5.56mm nato is not just a 25 yard rifle.   a lot of people who shoot it in bolt guns have a lot of confidence in it being a very adequate 250 to 300 yard pest rifle, e.g., ground squirrels, prairie dogs and the like, and some regard it as a pretty good deer rifle to 150 yards or so.

they do not shoot at the 25 yard target standards, but, seem to favor the 200 yard standards as providing a fair measure of the accuracy obtainable in their rifles.

are the people shooting the 5.56mm nato at 25 yards stupid, do they not know the ranging capability of the cartridge and the rifle?   do they not know of its use on the battlefield?

nope.

in my estimation they are not stupid.

in my estimation they shoot the rifle at short ranges because that is how they expect the rifle to be used.  at short ranges.   they do not envision that they will be fighting on a 400 to 450 yard battlefield, rather they envision that they will be defending their front yards, their porches, and their doorways and living rooms.

they envision a scenario in which they will be fighting to protect their hearths, their thresholds, and their kith and kin from direct frontal attack.

now, i live in a little town in north eastern oregon, about 7 or 8 miles south of walla walla, washington.  it's pretty quiet here.  we have a few guys running around w/ nylon beanies and pit bulls on the leash, wearing their wife beaters and baggie shorts around the crack of their asses.

people have never felt particularly threatened by this, figuring their .30-30's and .308 deer rifles pretty adequate to take care of what all that might portend.   they really aren't too worked up about it, and i hear very few comment about it over coffee and breakfast at the local eateries.

the following is for the director of d.h.s., and for "the one and true hussein" obama, current pretender in the white house.--

what i do hear at the local beaneries is a deep and abiding dislike for what the federal & state governments have become, and the perception that the greatest threat to our liberties, rights and traditions come from our domestic left, and the governmental apparatuses they control.

my dear friends, the 5.56x45mm nato cartridges being expended at the 25 yard range is to provide and prepare for government agents, whether civilian or national guard, coming to our homes to try and take our guns, or suppress our speech, or inhibit or prevent our right of free association to fight the political oppression we see all around us.

the people at the ranges do not see the need to prepare for a 400 yard battlefield, and set battle.  they see the coming threat on their doorstep, and for that, 25 yard shooting will do just fine.

so, mr. obama and various & assorted minions, be aware that your final few steps in the completion of your plans will be hotly contested.  you may find force entry into our liberties far more difficult than you ever dreamed.

i see that, every day, at the 25 yard target standard.  i see the evidence of that thinking on the ground, in the form of shooting practice for the day a lot of people see coming.

i hear it on the lips of my neighbors, ordinary farmers, workers, small business people, and ex-servicemen who fought in viet nam, in iraq and in afghanistan.

those final steps, obama & minions, will not be taken easily.

john jay @ 08.09.2013

p.s.   because typepad cannot seem to publish my replies to comments in my own "comment box."  http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2013/08/because-typepad-does-not-always-publish-my-responses-to-comments-.html

Related articles

Introducing Colt Hunting and Defense, Match Ammo in 5.56

Army Speeding M855A1 EPR Adoption, 7.62 NATO Variant in the Works

Some Torontonians take to scavenging to make extra money

Comments

[Jack]

There is a theory that if you sight a rifle in to hit a bullseye at 25 yards, that the rifle will be back on the bull at 100 yards. I've tried it and found that it was nonsense, at least the way I shoot.

I always sight my rifles 3" high of the center of the bull at 100 yards. With that, they can be shot at point blank range with a hole somewhere in the center of the circle and they are usually back on at 250-275 or require a 6-8" hold over on 350-400 yards, depending of course upon the specifics of the individual cartridge.

In any event this is a rule of thumb and because every shooter is different each shooter should take his gun to a range and find out exactly where his specific round is going. Switch rounds and you'll have to start over.

[guy]

With 7.62x39 out of a 16.25"(AK47) barrel a 25 yard zero will also be a 200 yard zero. And 3.6" high is the worst you'll be off anywhere in between.

Works out really nicely in my opinion.

[john jay]

guy:

in theory. but, as noted by jack, it all requires verification with actual shooting at known distances.

and, you must know the bullet, and the muzzle velocity from your arm, to be really precise.

jack:

i am in general agreement, but, as you note, it is all pretty highly variable, and anything different requires a different set of shooting solutions.

this trajectory business is based on a lot of factors, to include velocity of the bullet, the shape and weight of the bullet, ambient temperatures and the like. the height of the line of sight above the line of the bore has a tremendous impact upon aiming, and resultant trajectory to the target.

and, again, all the shooting solutions in the world, and all the methods used to arrive at them, require verification.

all of these things dictate whether you can hit a medicine ball at 350 yards, or whether you can reliably hit a baseball at such a distance from a cold barrel with the first shot.

and, one factor that's not been mentioned, is knowing the distance, almost to the foot at extended ranges.

it is a very complex subject, this long range shooting, and not easily comprehended by rule of thumb solutions.

i wish i could recite authority and appropriate links, but most of what i know i've learned from a group of fellows here in north east oregon who are skilled long distance shots.

they carry with them kestral weather stations that measure wind and barometric pressures, and have calculators that provide shooting solutions to be dialed into precision optics that consider gps fixed position, direction of the shot, effect of the spin of the bullet and the spin of the earth, and god knows what else.

holding the slick side of your thumb up to the wind just doesn't do it.

(and, as a matter of fact, though "height" is relatively easily accounted for, reading "windage" is an acquired art form, and requires a lot of shooting time. there is no substitute for time behind the stock. and, shooting.)

john jay

[CharlieL]

When I was in basic training, oh, 50 years ago we were taught to set our sights for a 25 yard zero, called a battlesight zero.. This was for combat use, as explained to us (aim for center mass), and were told that on the way down, the round would cross the sight path at right about 250 yards. This was with M-14s, 7.62NATO.
We were also told the ballistics were very close to the Garand 30-06.
Could anyone who trained with a Garand tell me if they got the same information?

[john jay]

charlie:

see the comments above.--

this seems to be more or less the approach the military has followed, at least the army, in teaching "marksmanship."

i've got a short post in reply to the above, because the assholes at typepad cannot seem to print my submissions to my own comment section.

sheesh.

john jay

[Jay Dee]

I haven't pulled out my ballistic software but your essentially correct. The bullet starts out below the line of sight. Depending on the velocity, ballistic coefficient & sight in range, the bullet will cross the line of sight somewhere between 15 & 25 yards. Closer sighting ranges moves this crossover point further away.

My 222 Magnum would cross the line of sight at 17 yards to sight in at 225yards. The bullet was never more than 1.5 inches above the lineb of sight at 100 & 150 yards.

[drew458]

The 25yd zero is a nice idea, but the point blank range you get all depends on the cartridge and the bullet.
Sighted in at 50 feet, my .44 mag rifle is spot on at 100 yards.

To get any use out of these short range trajectories, you have to plot the whole trajectory. Not much point sighting in a pokey old .45-70 at 25 yards if you want to hit a 200 yard bullseye. Plot the curve, then adjust your sighting in point

[john jay]

drew:

yes, agreed.

not everyone wants to go to the work and expense of getting these trajectory matters squared away.

again, it comes down to what is serviceable accuracy for a person.

baseballs, refrigerators, volkswagen beetles at 350 yards? some people claim long range hits using "kentucky windage" methods, but i remain a bit dubious.

john