Thread 64417151

>M240 effective range 1100m
>PKM effective range 1500m
>M14 effective range 800m
>SVD effective range 1000m
Why are American guns so weak and short range? Literally bested by some soviet leftovers from the 60's chambered in a 19th century cartridge.
Is this really why they had to return to battle rifles?

>svd effective range 1km
Rather american effective ranges are what you would call "realistic"

>>64417158
These slides are what lead to the M7.
Are you telling me that the basis for the adoption of the M7 was lies/disinformation?

>>64417151 (OP)
Classic case of putting an arbitrary label on things and then battling over which labels have bigger numbers, instead of comparing the actual entities in their use cases. Wordcels are a cancer.

>>64417161
yes

>>64417161
I'm saying it's a bit misleading, yes. Have you ever compared the two cartridges?

Some dude on quora said the russians load their x54r to 90k psi. He works as a gun store clerk. Reminder to never trust what they tell you out of hand

>SVD effective range 1000m

you might be able to hit the broad side of rhode island at that range. fucking 4-6 minute gun as a marksman rifle?

>We must now focus on individual squad weapon overmatch
Here's a question: why? In what scenario does a (alleged) minor difference in the comparative firepower of an individual squad at 1km play a meaningful role on the battlefield?

>>64417196
depends on how much money you offer the people responsible for making that determination for the US Army.
also
>60mm mortar effective range: 2 miles

>>64417196
>we must now focus
Where did you get that from? This is small beans compared to every other procurement project in the military

>>64417151 (OP)
You wanna know the funny part about the SVD having a 1000 meters?

In the same slide it also states the SVD effective range is 800 meters. It is schrödinger's SVD. If you dont pay attention to the slide then it has two effective ranges at the same time.

>>64417151 (OP)
And none of them are used past 500.
Next shit thread, please.

Barrett M82/M107
>effective range: 1800 meters
>entered service: 1989

Jim Schatz desperately trying to salvage his employer's dumpsterfire of a battle rifle has unleashed so much retardation that will continue to plague us long into the future. He is burning in hell now.

>>64417217
From the image in OP that says exactly that

>>64417178
This makes the moist nugget dislocating shoulder jokes all the more reasonable.

>>64417195
1-2moa, the 4x scope and pencil barrel is holding it back at that range more than anything

>>64417195
4 MOA is enough to harass a group at 1000 yards

>>64417161
Yes

>>64417228
I would love to see an officer grab a group of marksmen from the regular army and special operations and find out just how many of them are capable of consistently putting lead on moving man sized targets at 800 meters.
Even in PRS matches if the wind picks up the majority of shooters regardless of skill will miss the majority of their shots at 800 meters and beyond.
>800 meter effective range
should be
>above average marksmen has 800 meter effective range in ideal conditions against static targets

>>64417284
Thats fine for a machine gun but the svd is meant for point targets

The best explanation I've heard is that these slides are based on dug in Afghan rebels aiming down on pre-sighted locations and ambushed Americans aiming up at unknown ranges. That explanation at least makes some sense in a fighting the last war sort of way.

>>64417228
It's funny because if you read Russian Telegram their contract soldiers say the effective range of a SVD is 300-400m.

>>64417151 (OP)
.mil slides have a visual language that's unique
>Modern Eye Rape

>>64417294
In another NGSW thread I saw an anon confidently asserting that the M7 was a great thing because it allowed the US infantryman to engage at >800 m

>>64417345
okay

>>64417151 (OP)
Infantry firefights turned out to be gay and fake shit. Either your boys are clearing trenches/buildings by spraying around the corner or everyone is hiding not to get droned.

>>64417345
I blame Mark and Sam After Work from YouTube for giving people unrealistic expectations of precision rifles. They shoot at static targets in zero wind and edit out their misses.
Mark is on record stating he doesn't like shooting precision rifle matches because he's afraid of getting screwed by the wind. He's knows his little YouTube tricks won't work at live event.

>>64417151 (OP)
All mogged by the 11.5 PSA AR, just get closer bro

>>64417151 (OP)
All of them get mogged by a $5 drone
>>64417384
Every time

>>64417151 (OP)
Different definitions of "effective", US is using ranges a good marksman can realistically make hits while Russia is pretending Vlad is a world class sniper when in reality he's drunk and hungry.

>>64417161
>>64417151 (OP)
This slide is by an HK employee who has zero involvement in the NGSW project and HK didn't even participate at all

>>64417161
>anon learns about the MIC

>>64417399
More evidence that HK (Hebrew kikes) is a net negative on the gun industry

>>64417338
>effective range of a SVD is 300-400m.
What about the AKM, AK-74 and AK-12?

>>64417399
HK did participate, they designed the Textron rifle and helped convert it from the LSAT design to its final form.
>https://www.textronsystems.com/our-company/news-events/articles/press-release/textron-systems-leads-experienced-team-selected-us

>>64417454
IDK, it was a discussion about the SVD being obsolete because modern snipers weren't worth it and fought at 1km+ ranges anyway. But American troops in Afghanistan said the M4 had an effective range of 150-200m so I'd assume it's similar for AKs.

In other words, the actual soldiers' definitions of effective ranges were describing a high chance of hitting enemies maneuvering and shooting back at them in combat, while the academic studies and peacetime marksmanship definitions of effective range were describing a medium chance of hitting stationary popup targets on a known range.

So I think the Schatz type slides are describing a third definition - a low chance of hitting enemies, just enough to stop them from standing in the open in a counterinsurgency.

And by manipulating these different definitions Jewishly, HK and Sig sell their wares to the detriment of how the soldiers fight.

>>64417151 (OP)
Solution: give everyone an intervention

>>64417281
>1-2moa
more like 3-4moa

>>64417454
if the ak lacks any red dot or optics then i'd rate it way lower than M4. the sights are ww1-tier even if accuracy or even trajectory of 7.62x39mm don't matter at 150 yards.

>>64417284
Suddenly the M7's MOA isn't a problem? The fuck? You guys need to get your story straight.

>>64417719
2-3 average with 1.x being easily attainable

>>64418946
with handloads for half a mag, maybe

>>64417151 (OP)
what kind of battlefield do people envision that requires constant 800m+ uninterrupted line of sight?

>>64417151 (OP)
Because the vast majority of infantry engagements occur within 300 meters.

>>64417151 (OP)
>M240 bad, PKM good
what brain damage causes people to say this?

>>64417161
who are the brass that greenlighted and supported the adoption of the M7?

are they 60+ years old?

>>64417161
It’s like these dumb assholes have forgotten everything learned about combat in the 20th century.

>>64417161
The M7 is a piece of shit and unironically one of the worst rifles ever made, rivally the L85A1, FAMAS and INSAS in shitness. In fact I would say it's worse than all bar the INSAS because while the FAMAS and L85A1 had issues, if it was working fine, the rifle was good, but the M7 is so fucking retarded due to the recoil and reduction of magazine size (and total magazine capacity) that there are reports coming out of training bases going 'they run out of ammo 15mins earlier than they did with the M4' and they're totally fucked. The thing shakes apart when fired, the accessories break and fall off due to the recoil, you need to develop an entirely new stance to fire the damn thing
>stop being a weak manlet
Well go and tell the US military to put in restrictions for hiring, then.

The M7 is just proof of some dodgy background shit with SIG. We should have just adopted the .270/.280 British and told th em they could have the small arms industry and we have the rest, instead we had to muscle in and force 5.56 to get our monopoly and then end up adopting the thing 40 years later.

>>64418968
Upgrade the barrel to a thicker profile and shorter length and it will weigh 14lbs just like scar 20, hk417, lmt ar-10, etc. Until the ruger sfar is adopted as a dmr all military dmrs will be heavy for ruggedness reliability and longer strings of fire
The original svd was based on a requirement to be the same overall length as the pu mosin, but not retardly heavy and thus the barrel is 24" and skinny. This set of requirements of weight and length is thoroughly obselete in the current year
SVDS and SVDM have thicker profile barrels

>>64419054
Oh forgot to add, they're already trying to 'fix' the rifle my fiddling with the barrel already, making it 16" I think. I can't remember. I try to void all info I read about that piece of shit and just hope the military realizes that M4's are fucking fine, just give the M7 to some dedicated retard who can handle it I dunno.

At this rate, I’m expecting the US Army to return to brightly colored battle uniforms and line infantry with M7’s, complete with volley fire and some asshole on a drum instead of a radio.

I've shot 7.62x54r. Many of us have.
In no configuration of any weapon is it more or less comparable to a .308.
If 54r is a kilo capable round so is a .308
The ONLY battlefield problem a PKM represents is being a .30 cal class when a SAW is pushing whimpy 5.56, and no SVD ever made outclasses a 7.62 DMR.

>>64417228
>E-type 50%
IF you assume this criteria then effective ranges according to soviet small arms ballistic tables are
AKM 200m
AK-74 400m
PKM 200m
SVD 400m sniper ammo
SVD 300m LPS ammo

>>64419079
>The ONLY battlefield problem a PKM represents is being a .30 cal class
A PKM completely runs out of steam past 500 meters for E-type size target.
In hands of average shooter a PKM is 60 MOA gun...

>>64417281
SVD:
9.5 MOA sniper ammo fired by average shooter from support prone/standing in a trench
13.5 MOA LPS ammo fired by average shooter from support prone/standing in a trench
multiply by 40% if fired prone off hand

Source:
Taблицы cтpeльбы пo нaзeмным цeлям из cтpeлкoвoгo opyжия кaлибpoв 5,45 и 7,62 мм. Mиниcтepcтвo oбopoны CCCP. Boeниздaт. 1977 г.

>>64419343
>9.5 MOA sniper ammo fired by average shooter from support prone/standing in a trench
Jesus christ WUT, I can do that with a pistol

>>64417573
>But American troops in Afghanistan said the M4 had an effective range of 150-200m so I'd assume it's similar for AKs.
> peacetime marksmanship definitions of effective range were describing a medium chance of hitting stationary popup targets on a known range.
The 150-200 meters effective range estimate for the M4 is not that far of the effective range of the M16A2 with rifle qualification aiming error seen in a 1990 report about the general performance of rifles and marksman rifles.

>>64420788
US rifles are also by design more accurate then the russian rifles beyond 400 meters.

But if you throw in the same WORST Field excersice aiming error on all 4 rifles then the effective range become practically speaking the same at all ranges.

>>64420788
>>64420829
What criteria are worst field exercise error, is it bad range estimation, aiming habits, or something else entirely?

A G3/FAL with a scope can fit the same role of an svd with only 3-4 moa instead of 5-8 moa

>>64417399
He hadn't been an HK employee for years at that point.

>>64419029
IQ over 80 makes you say that.

>>64421153
>is it bad range estimation, aiming habits, or something else entirely?
It is the worst observed hit rate in field tests ment to simulation operational conditions. Keep in mind however it is peacetime result and not actual combat hit rate.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA228398.pdf

>>64419298
>Post picture of PKM outputting 7.5 inches cone at 100 yards while firing bursts.
>"It's 60 MOA!"
Why're you on /k/ if you don't know what MOA is?

>>64419343
>Post picture of average sniper with SVD outputting 2-3 inches cone at 100 yards with LPS, 1-2 inches with sniper ammo.
>"It's 9.5 MOA!"
Did you seriously miss the part where, while PKM table uses meters, the SVD table uses centimeters for its values?

Incompetent review, retard.

>>64417151 (OP)
Now post the range for the mg3 in lafette mount.

>>64417161
Yes. The ranges of Soviet weapons were given the uphill range advantage on top of being slightly overestimated to start with. If placed on flat ground the US weapons would be equivalent to their direct counterparts, or maybe slightly ahead because of greater accuracy.
>>64419054
>The M7 is a piece of shit and unironically one of the worst rifles ever made
Just wait till you hear about the "improvements" of the M7 PIP jej
>rivally the L85A1, FAMAS and INSAS in shitness.
tbf the FAMAS actually works unlike the other three. Works like garbage, but still works enough to have an okay assessment by its users.

>>64421508
>>Post picture of PKM outputting 7.5 inches cone at 100 yards while firing bursts.
That is not "7.5 inches cone". This 25% hits strip horizontal (Bб) and 25% hits strips vertical (Bв). Total size of dispersion circle is x8 of them.
For PKM fired from bipod 5 rds burst average shooters it is
1.52x1.04 meters or 60x41 inches. horizontal x vertical.

>Did you seriously miss the part where, while PKM table uses meters, the SVD table uses centimeters for its values?
You are missing what value Soviets quote. They dont quote "groups" aka diameter of the circle that holds all hits. They quote strip that holds 25% hits vertical or horizontally.

>>64422461
>For PKM fired from bipod 5 rds burst average shooters it is
At 100 meters range.
At 1000 meters dispersion ellipse size is 15.2x10.96 meters or 608x438 inches.

>>64422461
>>64422501
>Total size of dispersion circle is x8 of them.
I ask again, what the fuck are you doing on /k/ if you don't even know what MOA is? Seriously, you should stop putting in so much effort into being wrong.

Let's take SVD.

The soviets list two values for average deviation from aiming point, vertical deviation and horizontal deviation. Two values are needed because it's more of an oval, rather than a circle.

Either it's the distance from the aiming point - radius of the 'circle', or the maximum size of the dispersion - diameter.

To humor you, I pick the largest of the two values. There's no x8 modifier anywhere. With 1" being 2.54 cm. To gauge mechanical accuracy of the firearm, we use the 'best marksman' columns. And for 100 meters the highest deviation is horizontal - 1.4 cm.

>If the values are for diameter
1.4/2.54=0.5" MOA
>If the values are for radius
(1.4*2)/2.54=1.1" MOA

Given that you somehow managed to calculate a 16" rifled barrel to have 9.5 MOA at 100 yards, either you're off your meds, or SVD stole your lunch in third grade and you wish to take revenge on it.

>>64422578
>16" rifled barrel
24" rifled barrel of course.

>>64422578
>I ask again, what the fuck are you doing on /k/ if you don't even know what MOA is?
"MOA" is not what soviet document quotes.
It quotes
Bepoятнoe oтклoнeниe пo нaпpaвлeнию (Bб) - width of a vertical strip that holds 25% hits
Bepoятнoe oтклoнeниe пo выcoтe (Bв) - height of a horizontal strip that holds 25% hits
https://nastavleniya.ru/OSS/os13.html

>>64422578
>And for 100 meters the highest deviation is horizontal - 1.4 cm.
50% of hits will land in a 1.4 cm radius at 100m. When we say a gun is 1 MOA, that means 100% of hits will land in a 1 inch diameter circle at 100 yards, although some fags will drop fliers or intentionally shoot tiny groups that can get lucky.

That chart shows all of the SVD hits landing in a 5.6 cm (2.20 in) horizontal radius and 5.2 cm (2.04 in) vertical radius at 100m (109.36 yd) for approximately 4.02 MOA.

>>64422681
>That chart shows all of the SVD hits landing in a 5.6 cm (2.20 in) horizontal radius and 5.2 cm (2.04 in) vertical radius at 100m (109.36 yd) for approximately 4.02 MOA.
Bв and Bб ain't radius buddy... Its one standard deviation hits strip.
Radius in soveit documents is
R50 (P50) for 50% hits radius circle
R100 (H50) for 100% hits radius circle

>>64422681
>A bunch of fucking wrong ass numbers
You really are trying really hard. Okay let me humor you. Let's assume that when soviets mean 'average deviation', they really mean 'could fly out of the circle'.

So, again. SVD - Match Bullet - Best Marksman. 100 meters. Worst deviation is horizontal - 1.4 cm. We take it as radius and double it for diameter. Then we double it to get from 50% (average) to 100%.

((1.4*2)*2)/2.54 = 2.2" MOA for SVD.

>>64422663
You literally just read it wrong, bro. You should've cross-referenced yourself like a dozen times when you got a 9.5" MOA at 100 yards for a 24" rifled barrel.

>>64422703
50% is what's shown in >>64422663 and >>64422461. A radius of one of those whatevers means a circle with a diameter of two whatevers, which means 25%+25%, which means 50%.

Although now I see where I was off, since that circle would exclude the vertical spread and represent fewer than 50% of the hits, but my math for the 100% hit circle is still correct, it's a hair over 4 MOA.

>>64419298
I have lots of trigger time on a PKM, at much over 500 meters you are performing suppressive fire at best, and god help anyone you're providing overhead fire for at that range.
It's a really really good GPMG, but it's not in the same universe as the heavy MG's of old, like the MG08 , Vickers or M1917 Browning. Those, with their proper ammunitons could reach way out there.

>>64422723
You need to look up how standard deviation works. It's not secret Soviet math.

>>64422730
>but my math for the 100% hit circle is still correct
It literally isn't because you invent a bunch of variables that aren't in the table, based entirely on the wrong interpretation of the basic measurement concept.

When it says "average" deviation of 1.4cm, it really means that the bullet will land 1.4cm away from point of aim 50% of the time, and it clarifies that this is horizontal deviation, as vertical deviation is different, creating an oval instead of a circle.

>>64422752
That would require him to admit that SVD isn't as accurate as he dreamed of when jerking off to it.

I still don't understand what scenario the M7 is for. I know it entirely comes from us being "out ranged" by PKMs in Afghanistan but the multiple times I found myself in that situation, it was never a problem to hunker down and lob mortars at the guy, or in one contact have an F15 drop a jdam on the dude.

That was rhetorical, I know it's just corruption stemming from the logical conclusion of our defense industry consolidating in to a handful of mega corporations.

>>64422723
>You literally just read it wrong, bro
No matter who much you repeat that but Bв and Bб ain't radius of the 100% hits circle. Its one standard deviation hits strips.

>9.5" MOA at 100 yards for a 24" rifled barrel.
That includes users errors not just mechanical accuracy of the gun. For best shooters (soviets defined this as top 25% shooters from trials) SVD accuracy (prone supported sniper ammo) quoted as 4.5 MOA. Soviet trials documents quaoted SVD mechanical accuracy as 2.5 MOA with sniper ammo IIRC

But yes this what soviet document quotes.

>>64422663
>https://nastavleniya.ru/
Interesting site you've linked. I immediately found the SVD zeroing guide over here https://nastavleniya.ru/SVD/svd8.html

It says that if SVD cannot fit 4 shots into 8cm diameter circle at 100 yards (3" MOA), the rifle is broken and needs to be sent off for repair. Based on that alone, your calculations of 4" MOA, or 9.5" MOA, are obscenely out of field.

>>64422755
It is, since if the SD is 1.4cm and the 100% pH circle is 8 SDs wide, then all of the hits are contained in an 11.2cm (4.41 in) circle at 109.36yds, which is 4 MOA.

>>64420788
>>64421504
Good post anon. I didn't know this report existed.

>>64422793
>Soviet trials documents quaoted SVD mechanical accuracy as 2.5 MOA with sniper ammo IIRC
closer to 4 MOA actually, so top soviet shooters were fairly decent shots.

>>64422796
Why do you keep saying "inches MOA"? One MOA is 1/60th of a degree. Do you also say "inches degrees"?

>>64422755
>it really means that the bullet will land 1.4cm away from point of aim 50% of the time,
Not from point of aim but from line passing through point of aim
ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Эллипc_pacceивaния

>>64422823
Because I use cm to inch conversion and do not further convert inches into degrees.

>>64422796
quote it directly then, you're not so dumb and dishonest as to prtend standard deviation is max spread again, surely?

>>64422835
If you're comparing inches of diameter at 100 yards, then that's converting to minutes of angle. If you're comparing inches of diameter at any other range, then that's just inches of diameter and not MOA at all. Either way, saying "inches MOA" is wrong.

>>64422850
If the rifle cannot land 4 shots within 8 cm at 100 yards (3 MOA), it is considered outright broken. This is considered the worst possible state that a working SVD can be in.

>>64422796
>It says that if SVD cannot fit 4 shots into 8cm diameter circle at 100 yards (3" MOA), the rifle is broken and needs to be sent off for repair.
if first 4 rds group fail to fit into 8cm diameter circle at 100 meter then it made second 4 rds attempt. Only after 2nd shooting fail rifle is removed.
So 8 cm isn't exactly "4 rds group". Its 4 rds group over 2 shootings with one bad shooting discarded.

>>64422885
>So 8 cm isn't exactly "4 rds group". Its 4 rds group over 2 shootings with one bad shooting discarded.
This is a check to make sure you don't send a working SVD to the shop just because Ivan had too much to drink last night.

Meanwhile you give the best marksman with sniper ammo 4+ MOA (or was it 9.5 MOA?), meaning he could not complete this rifle test, as the test is performed by all snipers using LPS round and iron sights.

>>64422880
That's 2.88 MOA in the better of two four shot groups. I'd say the accuracy of a rifle is what it gets in a single 5 shot spread by a skilled shooter, or in several 5 shot spreads averaged together, not dropping any. By that measure, it's probably more like 3-3.5 MOA.

>>64422909
If the same shooter causes the rifle to put out a 1 MOA group during one shooting, and 9 MOA group during a follow up, the rifle is likely to be a 1 MOA rifle, and the shooter is likely to be retarded.

If the rifle is consistently 3.5 MOA in the hands of the best shooter, then the 8 cm diameter circle test will be failed again and again since the shooter cannot overcome a rifle's inherent inaccuracy by anything other than pure luck.

>>64422663
to be fair i'd not count the extreme 2% toward the group size, given how rare they happen. against the today's standard of 5 five shot groups there's only 50% chance of a flier in one of them happening from that estimate, so a more reasonable multiplier would be the 6x, not 8x.

>>64422925
if the rifle that can only do 4 shot groups at 100m is tested for 10, 20 round ones at longer ranges instead it's going to produce vastly different results so your defensive cope falls completely flat

Here is another
average number of ammo needed to hit target №6 "chest target"
500 meters average snipers sniper ammo 2 rounds
500 meters average snipers LPS ammo 3 rounds (for LPS number in brackets)
"Chest target" is 4 MOA at 500 meters. (Not exactly it has cuts but also corners )

>>64422948
>Hey check this out, if at any given time the rifle is tested for accuracy by any random sniper, it must produce 3 MOA or be considered a piece of shit in need of repair
>UHM NO ACTUALLY YOU LOST CHUD 9.5 MOA! COPE!
What the fuck is wrong with you

>>64422982
can you argue without crying, slavaboo svd tranny? you don't even know what MOA is.

>>64422989
>Slavaboo
You're the one reading russian here, dipshit. I must've guessed right, SVD did beat you up as a kid, you hate it to the point of ignoring your own sources if they don't portray SVD as 9.5 MOA rifle.

>>64422982
>, it must produce 3 MOA
With one bad attempt over 2 shootings. Its not how 3 MOA group defined. If you shot and bullets dont fit 3 MOA circle its not MOA gun.

>>64422997
i'm not even the guy you're screeching about, yet you're already this close to blowing your tranny brains out over some shitty crooked vatnik garbage rod, lmao.

>>64423015
not even that guy but spamming shitty ass tables from a zigger book he can't even read is bad look.

>>64423023
lmao, sure thing slavaboo tranny that can't even calculate MOA right.

>>64417161
Think about the amount of money you could make if you replace 556 and 762

>>64417151 (OP)
It's the 20th century, get with the times gramps.

>>64417196
>why? In what scenario does a (alleged) minor difference in the comparative firepower of an individual squad at 1km play a meaningful role on the battlefield?

Suppose they have a firefight across a lake that is 1.2 km wide.

What you don't really ever hear about is a term called intended range

>>64428409
Have you considered walking around the lake?

>>64428409
>>64428545
That's what the tanks are for.

>>64428578
More like mortars or artillery, but a tank would probably get the job done.