Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Naturally, seismology provides the answer.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                     

Dual sight rifle

Iron site and telescopic site on the same rifle for short and long range shooting
  (+3, -2)
(+3, -2)
  [vote for,
against]

To have iron sites for close range targets, and telescopic sites for long range targets, place the telescopic site on the top of the rifle. Place the front iron site on the side of the barrel, and the rear iron site on the side of the barrel. If most of the barrel is covered by the stock or other components, the rear iron site could be placed elsewhere on the rifle. An AR-15/M-16 style "hi-rise" type front and rear site and modification of the stock might have to be used to accomplish a comfortable "shouldering" of the rifle into firing postion. The iron sites may best be a folding style in order to allow the rifle to be placed in a case and to prevent the sites from getting in the way of things.
Sunstone, Jan 04 2009

ACOG DOC http://www.centurio...-p/trta01nsndoc.htm
mmmmm very nice [Custardguts, Jan 05 2009]

Side scope mounted on a 30-30 http://hunting-wash...attach=189565;image
See also a side mount sniper scope on an American civil war Whitworth sniper rifle. http://is.gd/kEA5xy [Sunstone, Nov 19 2015]

[link]






       Some types of Scope mounts allow you to see through the iron sights as normal, there are also some types of offset scope mounts I believe(like for my Winchester 30-30 lever action).
jhomrighaus, Jan 04 2009
  

       Common as muck.   

       First up, commonly m4 style rifles feature (or can be upgraded with) fold-down iron sights as a backup for the optics. Secondly, iron sights aren't all that quick for target aquisition, most would prefer a reflex sight such as an eotch holosight, etc.   

       Thirdly, there are many, many solutions to this issue currently in place. For example, you can fit an eotech holosight or aimpoint red dot to your rifle, (which co-wittnesses your fixed iron sights anyway) and have a twist-on removeable telescopic ubit, that adds a 3X zoom to the sight (and is very quickly removable.   

       Lastly, you can get a trijicon ACOG sight, (fixed zoom illuminated reticule scope), which has an accessory rail, which you can fit a small reflex sight to. So you can look through the scope, or over the top through the red-dot reflex sight.   

       Additionally, the F88 steyer our Aussie troops use has an integral Swarovski 1.5X scope installed, on top of which is a rather crude auxillary iron sight.   

       Furthermore, the popular german G36 assault rifle features as standard a (IIRC) 1.5X telescopic sight , as well as a relfex sight, all built into the handle piece.   

       Even more furthermore, many low-to-medium magnification illuminated reticule sights feature a lens system that lets you use them like a relfex sight. For instance the high end ACOG's have a system (can't remember the name of the dude it's named after) that means you don't have to focusthrough the sight if you're in a hurry, just bring the scope up in front of your face, keep both eyes open and you'll see the red dot, aim, squeeze, and you're good.   

       I could go on... I think the point I'm trying to make is that there is a whole industry looking into this issue, and they're a long way past iron sights. I personally think that combat optics make you a more effective marksman, so long as they're durable and reliable (which most good ones are, now), and so long as you have a backup as in flip up irons, etc.   

       I suppose the common existence of cowittnessed iron sights, as well as the very common existence of flip-up backup iron sights may well make this widely-known-to-exist, but I won't make that call.
Custardguts, Jan 04 2009
  

       bit of a non-sequitur since iron sights are good up to a few hundred yards which is the best yer garden variety soldier is going to get out of his/her garden variety assault weapon... yer sniper types don't generally run around in the bush day-to-day with their sniper rifles.
FlyingToaster, Jan 04 2009
  

       As a shooter myself, I must say there's a big difference between "good up to a few hundred yards" ie graduated for long ranges, roughly in terms of bullet drop, and practical for use at longer ranges. Likewise, there's a difference between "good for" ie useable vs the best ststem available.   

       Likewise shorter range rapid aiming and shooting. Open sights are too slow, comparatively. A good [limited] example is my shotgun. I have a bolt action mossberg 3-shot, onto which I have fitted an eotech holosight. I'm hitting doubles at the trap range, just about 100%. That includes working the bolt between shots. Gunna try tripples as soon as I can get a third chucker. I am only an average shooter [very average, trust me], but the red dot sight makes target aquisition as simple as putting the dot on the target, no form needed at all. If I had rifle style vee-and-post sights, no chance - I might not even hit one.   

       In these modern days of "urban" warfare, where the target is often under 150m away, moving, firing back, etc I don't think I've ever heard anyone involved say they'd prefer open sights. Just look at the dizzying array of optics bristling all over the M4's you see on the news in Iraq. Joe soldier isn't going to lug around an extra half-kilo or so in gadgetry (that he chose to fit, often that he bought for himself) if it didn't give him the edge.
Custardguts, Jan 05 2009
  

       If we are talking military here, as far as I'm concerned, anything less than the very best isn't good enough. Too many mates and relatives been there and other places, underequiped due to beaurocratic reasons. Okay, maybe they shouldn't be there in the first place, but if they are, give 'em the best training and kit, 'cause we want 'em home alive.
Custardguts, Jan 05 2009
  

       That didn't sound so preachy in my head....
Custardguts, Jan 05 2009
  

       didn't have to, no argument there, concern that I have is "bloat" where unnecessary.... yes a 4x would come in handy >100 yds if it doesn't get knocked about too much and is collapsible or maybe a laser-sight's "yes I'm going to shoot you just stand still for a few seconds, thanks"
FlyingToaster, Jan 05 2009
  

       hmm. ya know.... if you put the optics fixed-mount on the side then have a flip-up mirror arrangement....
FlyingToaster, Jan 05 2009
  

       //That didn't sound so preachy in my head//   

       Man, I would like to ask you a few questions, though.
Zimmy, Jan 06 2009
  

       Go on then.
Custardguts, Jan 06 2009
  

       custard, you have an almost unnerving knowledge of weaponry. Are you an Gunny armorer or something? the only guy I ever met with that kind of knowledge was a Master Gunnery Seargent in the marine corp who spent most of that time running an armory. That dude knew pretty much everything there was to know about the different ways to break things, kill people and wreak havoc.
jhomrighaus, Jan 06 2009
  

       It's probably just an unhealthy obsession I have then.
Custardguts, Jan 06 2009
  

       //Go on then.//   

       I had thought that it would be faster to learn to adjust for distance with a graded non-scope sight than with one. (my experience shooting is with a decent air-gun w/ scope as a kid, so I know very little, just fyi).   

       Are scopes so much better now than the one I had (probably cheap) where they would be faster to accurately adjust for distances than the one I had? (& not a $1000 scope, maybe a $100-200 one).   

       At some point I want to buy either a rifle or a shotgun, just in case I need it to survive. I was initially thinking of an AR15, but lately I have been thinking of a 12 ga, instead.   

       + Sunstone, I like the idea.
Zimmy, Jan 13 2009
  

       First of all, I'm not a real fan of the survivalist mentality, but each to their own, and I do beleive everyone should make themselves feel safe, so here we go.   

       First up, if you're worried about range adjustment, stop worrying. Standard assault callibre is still .223 (5.56mm), which shoots flat enough to stay within chest depth over 300m, I suggest ranging for 200m zero. That said, if you want longer ranges ie sniping, or a different, or a less flat shooting round (ie bigger), then yes, range estimation and elevation adjustment come into it. The semantics of long range shooting are definitely beyond the scope of this, suffice to say that it's fairly specialised. If you want to aim and hit a man sized arget out to 500 metres or more, then I'd suggest a dedicated sniping rifle (buy a good "varmint gun", get it in a good long range callibre, I suggest .308, .300 Winchester magnum, .338 WM, .338LPM, or similar), get a good scope, good bipod, laser rangefinder, get some lessons, and practice practice practice. I don't see how this setup is useful in a survivalist scenario.   

       From what I've read, and which goes with my own opinions, is you need several bits of kit if you think the proverbial is going to hit the fan. It's all budget-dependent, but it normally starts with a sidearm. This is real fight-for-life stuff here, if you ever get your pistol out, it's 50-50 or less whether you're going to walk away anyway, but get one for peace of mind. Think .45 automatic, maybe .40 S&W, 10mm, maybe as low as the new .357Sig, no less. 9mm is a joke. Get an automatic (semi-auto for non-pistol jargon types), and get a good reliable one, think glock, S&W (the new M&P are nice), or one of the 1911 variants (kimber, etc).   

       Second is a working gun, think civilian version of an assault rifle. The AR15 family are popular, but if you go down that road I'd steer toward one of the newer piston-operated versions, as the gas operated ones are seriously high maintenance. AK's are popular, 'cause you can't break them. The round itself (7.62X39) is hard hitting, cheap, but not very flat shooting, and the rifles are innacurate. I'd personally look at a piston-operated AR15 variant. I'd for out what I need to get a good optic, think low power variable scope, or even a red-dot like an eotech, aimpoint, etc. I live in Australia, so semi-auto is simply innaccessible for me.   

       You're thinking shotgun. Not a bad choice, shotguns are the way to go as long as range is less than about 75m. Beyond that, the shotgun is just noisy, but no good to you. Think about where you live, or where you go if it hits the fan. Is <75m what you really want? Maybe so. If so, yes, I'd say shotgun would be the best choice, you don't need anywhere near the same skill level in order to be effective.   

       If you think surviving in a SHTF scenario is something you need to worry about, go read some of the survivalist forums, they are a wealth of knowledge and you'll get what you need there. THe issue of surviving some kind of meltdown is so much more than going and buying a gun...   

       Like I said, I don't subscribe to the survivalist mentality, I've read their point of view, and given it thought, and just don't see it getting there. I live in an area where all that chaos crap simply won't be an issue anyway. I prefer to be more optomistic than those mob.   

       Good luck, hope you find what you need for you and yours to feel safe, that's the most important thing.
Custardguts, Jan 13 2009
  

       Nothing wrong with 9mm unless you're up against somebody/thing with serious body armour: rounds are easily available and interchangeable with most sub-machine gun rounds and they use what, 1/2 or 2/3 the powder of a .45 which I grant you will stop a bear as long as it isn't too pissed off.   

       I'd be tempted to say go with a 7.62 assault rifle (personal preference) but a civilian bolt-action would be just as good, even better as long as you don't need fast semi-auto or auto fire: lighter, usually better build quality and better recoil distribution. Dunno why you want a bipod: unless you actually *are* Rambo, "survive" doesn't usually imply sniping and a bipod can get snagged in branches and things when you want to move fast.   

       Of course a semi-auto shotgun will scare the crap out of anybody/thing within 50 yards and is good for airborn fast-food.   

       Mostly I suppose it depends on what exactly you mean by "survive"... barebones vacationing ? WW-III ? Zombies ?
FlyingToaster, Jan 13 2009
  

       ...Definietely all for offline discussion.
Custardguts, Jan 14 2009
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle