Bren vs BAR

[Shortround6]

Palma match ammo may be loaded to higher pressures and velocities. The rifles may be chamered to slightly tighter specs. The rules have changed over the years, ay one point the competitors were supposed to use NATO spec ammo + or- a certain tolerance which is were the 155 grain bullet came from. For quite a number of years the host country supplied the ammo to the competitors to even things out so at that time it didn't pay to have too special a chamber. Many countries may have slightly different rules and the "Palma" match at the National Matches in the U.S. only shares the name, distance and caliber of barrel (30 cal magnums were and may still be allowed).

The chambers may be up to the individual gunsmith. I do know in Canada at one of their matches we were issued ammo so again, you don't want to get to tight or ticky with the dimensions of the chamber. Tighter than military yes8)

 

[Soren]

I will note that I have never seen a V sight on a serious target range. I have been to the American National matches (small bore) 6 times. The Canadian nationals 2 twice (full bore), several trips to Australia including being allowed to fire at the 1991 Oceanic Continental Shooting Championships ( not really allowed to compete for some awards becasue I was from the wrong part of the world, saved myself some embarrasement
I have also helped coach junior and high school teams for over 20 years.

I will grant that none of this is combat shooting but we are discussing sights aren't we.

Look through a peep sight, all you have to line up is the front sight and the target. Eye only has to focus on the front sight (at what distance?) and let the target go a little fuzzy. Young shooters may not even notice target is blurry.
V sight shooter has to line up three things, and has to focus eye at three distances.

None the less V sights permit more accurate shooting if you have good eyesight. That is my experience, and because of it I prefer V sights over peep sights.

 

[Amsel]

V sights are better for close, snap shooting, but for long range the peep sight is much better.

 

[Glider]

None the less V sights permit more accurate shooting if you have good eyesight. That is my experience, and because of it I prefer V sights over peep sights.

Soren
If this was the case they would be used in contests. You will never see any serious target shooter use a V sight be it a .22 or a full bore shooter, be it prone or three position. You will never hear a coach train anyone on one.
If you think that you can match a target shooter using a V sight I suggest you go down to your local target shooting club, join and you will see the difference.

 

[Soren]

Glider don't job to conclusions.

There is no need for it, I have plenty of experience with both types of sights Glider. The difference between the two is that the peep sight is easier to use while the V sight permits more accurate shooting if you have good eyesight.

What trainers train other with is of no concern, they train people in what they know about, and they are most likely used to peep sights and not V sights. That's the problem with V sights, not many people are used to them or have even tried them.

V sights was the first type of sight I started shooting with and thus I learned to use it correctly. Many people dont know how.

 

[Soren]

Glider,

I was looking at some target aperture sights today and I can tell you that they are nothing like the peep sights put on military rifles. The peep hole is way smaller on the target aperture sight compared to any miltary peep sight I have ever layed eyes on. There's no comparison.

The sights I looked at looked just like this one:

 

[Shortround6]

If you didn't know until today what a target aperture sight even looked like than how can you claim that V sights are more accurate?

Kind of throws doubt on the rest of your arguements.

By the way, several of my friends have shot on the All gaurd rifle team. That is the National National guard team from all 50 states. They would laugh at the idea of using a V sight. THey used M-14s and M-16s for many years and in some interservice matchs worked over match guns (called national match rifles ) were not allowed so they use issue rifles with issue sights.

 

[Glider]

Soren
Now you know why Shortround and I both admit that target apature sights are not suitable on military rifles. However now you know why I have said that with the scores you are getting with a V sight, you should join a club, get some coaching and take it up as a sport.

PS the one you showed is a very basic one but will do the job. Modern ones are very sophisticated

 

[Soren]

If you didn't know until today what a target aperture sight even looked like than how can you claim that V sights are more accurate?

I've never participated in any civil target shooting competitions Shortround, so how was I supposed to know the kind of sights used in such competitions intimately ? I will however let you know that I have participated in litterally thousands of military target practices, and not one was with that type of aperture sight. It was with military std. peep sights, the ones you find on rifles like the M-14. And I can tell you for a fact that the V sight fairs better than this for a man with good eyesight who knows how to operate it.

Kind of throws doubt on the rest of your arguements.

Please enlighten me on how it throws any doubt on my arguments considering that this discussion was about military rifles and not civil match rifles?

If anything it just casts doubts on to your understanding of the topic at hand.

By the way, several of my friends have shot on the All gaurd rifle team. That is the National National guard team from all 50 states. They would laugh at the idea of using a V sight. THey used M-14s and M-16s for many years and in some interservice matchs worked over match guns (called national match rifles ) were not allowed so they use issue rifles with issue sights.

I could care less about what they do in the states Shortround, over there not many people know how to properly operate a V sight. Over here in Europe more people do as more rifles feature these kinds of sights.

And your friends can laugh all they want, but I'd like to see them score higher than we did on the 600 meter course with V sights contra their std. issue peep sights.

Case closed.

 

[Soren]

Soren
Now you know why Shortround and I both admit that target apature sights are not suitable on military rifles. However now you know why I have said that with the scores you are getting with a V sight, you should join a club, get some coaching and take it up as a sport.

Glider, the scores I'm getting with either V sights or peep sights are nothing out of the ordinary, don't fool yourself. My scores are in the high end, I'm a seasoned shooter, but I am not some kind of rare natural talent as many of my former colleagues shoot just as-well or better than I do.

There's no reason to play smart on this, I've got over 20 years of experience shooting with smallarms ranging from small pistols to large caliber anti mat personnel rifles. And I'd wager that I've tried just about every type of military iron sight that has ever been issued since the beginning of the 1900's.

If you want a fair comparison I can tell you that I own a shoot two K98k's one Mk4 Enfield(Recently exchanged one for a C96 Pistol), and I always score better with the K98ks using iron sights. The V sight simply feels better more precise for me. Now I know that accuracy also depends on the rifle, but these rifles are in mint condition (Otherwise I would have never bought them), and I know that in terms of accuracy the K98k No.4 Enfield were top of the line during WW2, the best there was. The results I got with scopes mounted just also varifies it, it was largely the same at 400m shooting the same type of projectile (Sierra MK).

PS the one you showed is a very basic one but will do the job. Modern ones are very sophisticated

I have no doubt that they are, but they are not used in the military and thus have no relevance in this discussion.

A view through a std. issue peep sight, and this one I am all too familiar with(Similar to the one on the M16 except that you can flip over to a smaller rear peep sight on the M16, allowing a little more accuracy at distance):

Having a look through one of those civilian match aperture sights and one will realize there is no comparison at all. It's a whole different ball park. The civilian aperture sights wouldn't last a day in the military and would be useless against anything but a clear target.

 

[Shortround6]

From Sorens post # 91

"As for the sights, V sights are the most accurate iron sights there are if you ask me. I don't care much for peep sights."

Now, nowhere in that statement is there anything about miltary sights.

I would think that in evaluating a sight system you would want to eleminate all the other variables so you are elvauating the sights alone.

Since you admit you are unfamilar with the arperture sights that hardly constitutes a fair comparison.

You might also want to look at the last picture you posted and think a moment.

Lets consider a few advantages of the peep sight.

1. a longer sight radius so that the same apparent misalignment is actually a smaller angle.
2. the previously mentioned "one less thing to line up and focus on"
3. Back to the picture. a better field of view. Take the top of hte ring of but fill in the bottom so all you have left is a narrow notch pretty much filled in with the post. just how much are you going to see on either side of your aiming point or below it.

Now a wide open battle sight will be a little less precise than a tiny target aperture but if you think it makes a huge difference you don't understand how/why aperture sights work. You would be surprised what you can do with a target sight even unscrewing the large disk and aiming throught the threaded hole it came out of.

The Mauser sight with the inverted v front and the v notch rear is also rather hard to use in poor light.

You don't have to believe my experience but then I don't have to believe yours either. While coaching I also worked part time in the gun store at the largest commercial range on the East coast. I have heard all the BS stories from guys who claimed they could light kitchen matches with their open sight 22 at 50 yds standing. EVERY TIME. I just smiled and nodded which is what I am going to do now.

 

[Soren]

Shortround, laughing is good for the health, so good for you.

I wonder if my friend from the youtube channel will ever stop laughing after reading your responses however, even if they are typical for US shooters.

Man those V sights sure are hard inaccurate to use

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ-Lcvyrifw

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsomougcK6E

Upper torso sized target, 6 hits out of 7 shots at 640 yards and 2 hits out of 6 shots at 1,000 yards with a V sight, try doing that any better with a std. military issue peep sight. I'd sure like to see it!

 

[Glider]

Laugh all you like Soren but he is right. When coaching with a .22 in extreme cases I would sometimes make the shooter fire without a rear sight. When they scored 80+ on a 25 yard target, would give them a basic rear sight with a large aperture and when they averaged 95+ would let them use all the options on a modern Iris.

The main reason for a smaller aperture has nothing to do with accuracy at a distance, its to do with the amount of light that is on the eye. In poor light conditions the rear aperture should be opened up, in bright conditions closed down. I have never handled an M16 let alone shot one but its probable that the reason for an optional smaller aperture is for shooting in bright conditions, not for more accuracy at long ranges.

Even in target shooting there is a belief that a smaller aperture is more accurate but thats a false belief and why as mentione above I start training with a large aperture rear sight.

 

[Soren]

I'm not the one who brought up the laughing Glider. And seeing that you two are both civilian target match shooters it doesn't really say much that you support each other, I can understand that.

Shortround however needs to try the std. military sights before he becomes cocky and starts playing smart about stuff he has limited knowledge about. Shortrounds lack of belief in the V sight's capabilities and mockery of my performance in the field only reinforces the fact that he has probably never tried target shooting with this kind of sight before.

Fact is that I have achieved better results with std. issue iron V sights at distances of 100, 200, 400, 600 1000 meters than I ever have with any std. issue peep sight, and so have several of my former colleagues. It's as simple as that Glider, and it's field experience.

The best I have ever done with iron sights was probably when I scored 7 hits out of 10 consecutive shots at a human silhouette target exactly 800 meters away, this with a V sight, rested rifle and in prone position. I consider that above average, I dunno about you.

 

[parsifal]

You guys know more than I do, but I just find it difficult to believe that effective battle ranges of over 1000 yds were considered feasible, even with a full powered rifle like the Mauser, using open sights.

I have never fired in competition, and have not picked up a rifle in over ten years, however, when I was in the navy, I trained to lead boarding parties. These are the guys you see coming alongside illegal fishermen and the like to search and apprehend drug runners, illegal fishermen, pirates, that kind of thing. As a seaborne policeman, my life got interesting on more than one occasion. So even though I reject the "gun culture" almost in its entirety, Ive been around them and have been pretty comprehensively trained on a range of different weapons. Before I was assigned to these duties, I was required to complete firstly a gunnery (small arms) course, and then the advanced small arms training. I was trained on a number of different weapons, but the most frequently used were the 9mm Browning pistol, the F-1 Thompson and Owen SMGs, the L1A1 (SLR) and a few shots out of the Full auto variant . We also trained with various grenades and had a few shots out the US M-16, and a colt 45. We had some training, but not much, on the Bren, and the the M-60. We also learnt how to operate the 50 cal, a huge HMG that scared the living daylights out of me.....it just makes one hell of a noise, and shakes the living daylights out of you. It fires what I can only describe as small artillery shells......

We also learnt to shoot using the old Lee Enfield. These were a marvellous gun, but as I recall some of the guns had been reduced to 22 caliber.....dont know how, but I do recall how much less recoil they had in comparison to the full powered rifles.

Finally we did quite a bit of training with clay targets, using 12 gauge shotguns. I remember thinking this was odd, but the idea appareantly was to train us as "instinctive shooters....this was to literally save my life subsequently. We found that situations often required instinctive shooting rather sighted shooting.

The SLR was a rifle designed for a medium powered round that at the last minute had been upgraded to the standard NATO 7.62 mm round. I found it consequently a handful to manage. It tended to be lively on the range, and took some training to get the best out of it. By comparison the old Lee Enfield was heavier, but with a more powerful round (I think). The relatively heavy weight of the weapon made it more controllable, and from the users point more accurate.

The most accurate of the rifles was in fact the 22 caliber lee enfield training rifles that were were introduced to. Though the round was smaller and lighter, the heavy weiight of the weapon, and the light caliber and power of the round made it very easy to handle, and consequently it was always very easy to hit targets with this gun. I suspect this was why the Navy had them....to get the confidence of recruits up, before moving onto the more tricky weapons

I found the following description of the SLR on the net (the link is at the bottom of the page). It has an effective battle range of 300 metres, and a maximum range of 656 metres. This explains why we were trained to a high level of accuracy out to 450 metres....not that we would ever have engaged even land targets at that range. Rifles in my experience are seldom used much beyond 250 metres in real battle situations.

This is why I find it hard to accept that the germans were training or expecting standard line formations, or even snipers to effectively engage out past 1200 metres. Over open sights I say that is just impossible. With very high powered scopes, and under the most ideal of conditions...ie a target range, possibly, but in battle, I just find it hard to accept, knowing as I do just how hard it is to hit things with military issue weapons at that range

The L1A1 is the Australian version of the Belgian FN FAL rifle. It entered into service with the Australian Army in 1959. The L1A1 was a reliable, hard-hitting, gas-operated, magazine-fed semi-automatic rifle, with a maximum battle range of 300 metres and a practical rate of fire of 20 rounds per minute. In Vietnam the L1A1 was the standard personal weapon of the Australian soldier. With a full 20 round magazine it weighed 4.96Kg. The standard issue was 5 magazines per rifleman but almost all carried as many filled magazines that they could get their hands on, often dispensing with food rations in order to find room for the extra ammunition. The rational to this was that the extra 7.62 mm rounds fired from an SLR rifle would do more damage than throwing a can of Ham and Lima Beans.

Type: Battle rifle
Place of origin: Belgium
Wars: Cold War, Vietnam War, Falklands War
Designed: 1951
Manufacturer: Fabrique Nationale (FN)
Produced: 1953—
Number built: Over 1 million
Weight: 4.0–4.96 kg (8.8–10.2 lb)
Length: 1,090 mm (43 in)
Barrel length: 533 mm (21 in)
Cartridge: 7.62 × 51 mm NATO
Calibre: 7.62 mm (.308 in)
Action: Gas-operated, tilting block
Rate of fire: 20 rounds/min semi auto
Muzzle velocity: 823 m/s (2,700 ft/s)
Effective range: 600 m (656 yd)
Feed system: 20-round detachable box magazine
Sights: Aperture rear sight, hooded post front sight

http://www.5rar.asn.au/weapons/slr.htmaly

I also vaguely seem to recall that some of the enfields had open v-sights, and some were fitted with SLR type peep sights.

I didnt do much training on the V- sights, and it was a long time ago. But I recall coming to the conclusion that the Peep sights were much easier to use, and consequently the accuracy of the squad as a whole went up.

With the SLR we were initially required to hit a standard head sized target out to 250 metres, I think we had to achieve a standard of at least 8 out of 10 hits on the target. For the advanced course this range was increased to 450 metres. Nearly everyone had a great deal of difficulty achieving that standard, and it usually took many trips to the range, before we passed this test. Only about half the class actually passed the course to be honest, so hitting targets at that range is not an easy thing to do.

 

[Doughboy]

IMO, the peep sight is more accurate because there is no rear sight blocking out half of what you're aiming at.. I have experience with both and I shoot better with a peep sight...

 

[parsifal]

I found this information with respect to the K-98 Mauser. The web link is at the bottom of the page

This rifle came equipped with two sling swivels, a curved tangent-type rear sight (also known as the "Lange Visier") and open front sights. The Mauser Gewer 98 was derived from the experimental, not so very popular, Gewehr 96 Rifle. The muzzle velocity of the rifle was 878m/s and the cartridge used was the 7.92×57mm Mauser. The rifle came in 3 configurations, as follows: Kar 98a, Kar 98b and Kar 98k. The effective range was 500 m (about 547 yards) using iron sights and 800+ m (about 875 yards) using optics.

Mauser Rifles Hunting Rifles Reviews > Rifle Brands

So, is the does the Mauser only have an effective range of 500 metres over open sights, or, is this review wrong?????

 

[Amsel]

I don't agree with the article. The maximum effective range over ironsights depends on the person who is shooting. If he can see farther to line the sights up then I think 700 meters over ironsights and 1,000+ with optics seems more like it.

 

[Soren]

The effective range of the K98k is over 1200 meters with a scope and about 800 meters with iron sights. The effective range of a weapon pretty much refers to the range at with it can be aimed out to accurately enough to be considered a real hazard to the intended target. Machine guns usually have longer effective ranges for this reason as they usually get to pour 10 or more rounds at the target in about a second.

The effective range of the MG34 MG42 fired with a bipod is for example 1200 meters while mounted on a tripod it is 3500+ meters. It's no wonder the British refered to them as cannons in the African desert campaign.

 

[Glider]

The best I have ever done with iron sights was probably when I scored 7 hits out of 10 consecutive shots at a human silhouette target exactly 800 meters away, this with a V sight, rested rifle and in prone position. I consider that above average, I dunno about you.

I have never done any bench firing apart from when finding the best ammunition for a rifle or tuning a barrel. That said I believe the world record for bench firing at 1000 yards is just under 5 inches.

However, these are specially made rifles with unlimited magnification on the sights. The rifles are very heavy, often handmade and sometimes include exotic materials in their design and come with a trigger pressure measured in ounces. The ammunition is hand loaded to extraordinary tolerances and in some types of contest the rifle is cleaned after every round. These rifles come if two classes, light and heavy but if I recall correctly light is still under about 18/19 pounds, as for heavy I have no idea what the limit is.

So if you can get 7 out of ten at a target about 15 inches square at 800 yards, with a rubbish (because it is compared to any target rifle) sight, on an old rifle, firing shop purchased ammunition, using a sandbag as a rest instead of a tailored bechsupport and no coaching on a regular basis, you, as I have said a number of times, should think about taking it up seriously.