100 Yard Zero Target - Page 2

AR-15 » Optics, Mounts, and Sights

AR Sponsor:

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 100 Yard Zero Target (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 6/11/2006 7:29:11 PM EDT

[#1]

Woops, I meant to say in regards to the small peep sight vs the large peep sight that the small peep is centered slightly LOWER on the bore vs the large peep due to the longer ranges.

I like the large peep sight. The small peep sight is too blurry for me. The larger sight allows for a cleaner sight picture, IMO (focusing on the front sight, of course). To each his own, I suppose, eh? My rifle is mine, there are many like it but this one is mine.

Posted: 6/12/2006 1:12:57 AM EDT

[#2]

Thanks for the target. I always preferred a 100 yd zero, so that target will come in handy next time out to the range.

Posted: 6/12/2006 2:49:51 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Woops, I meant to say in regards to the small peep sight vs the large peep sight that the small peep is centered slightly LOWER on the bore vs the large peep due to the longer ranges.

I like the large peep sight. The small peep sight is too blurry for me. The larger sight allows for a cleaner sight picture, IMO (focusing on the front sight, of course). To each his own, I suppose, eh? My rifle is mine, there are many like it but this one is mine.

With my nose to the CH, the 0-2 large aperture is HUGE. If the small aperture is too fuzzy for you, open your eye a little more. It should appear as an unfocused circle as you focus on the front post.

Posted: 6/12/2006 3:12:45 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Please edjumakate me a bit on this, if someone wouldnt mind....

The small peep vs the big peep sight: iirc, isnt the small peep centered slightly higher over the bore than the big peep sight because the small peep sight is made for use at 300m+? My question is basically this: Does it matter what peep sight we use as long we use the same sight for actual use? I MUCH prefer to use the large peep sight vs the small peep sight when I use irons sights on my AR15.

It depends on the individual.

I, for instance, hardly ever use the small aperture except for sighting in. Given that most anything I will need to shoot will be up close and personal, I prefer the large aperture for most work.

If I am on a KDR or shooting prone at a distance over 75 yards, then I will use the smaller aperture because it is a bit more precise.

There is a small theoretical difference in the sights effect on POI. I say theoretical because the difference is usually within the margin of error that comes with the shooter holding the weapon.

Posted: 6/12/2006 3:54:21 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:
When I did the Santose IBZ at 50 yd, I noticed my shots were low at 25 yd, approximately where the white box is below the horizontal line in the 100yd zero target.

That's pretty much always going to happen since the sights on an AR are about 2.6" above the bore. I prefer the Santose zero because it's very flat out to 300yds.

With the Santose zero you'll have:
1" low at 25yds
dead on at 50yds
1.6" high at 100yds,
1.4" high at 150yds
0.7" high at 200yds
-0.3" low at 250yds,
-1.5" low at 300yds
-2.9" low at 350yds
-4.5" low at 400yds
-6.3" low at 450yds
-8.4" low at 500yds.

With a 100yd zero you'll have:
-1.6" low at 50yds
dead on at 100yds
-0.3" low at 150yds
-1.8" low at 200yds
-4.9" low at 250yds
-9.6" low at 300yds
-16.3" low at 350yds
-25.4" low at 400yds
-37.2" low at 450yds
-52.3" low at 500yds

I know Paul Howe of Combat Shooting and Tactics/Triple Canopy is big on the 100 yard zero. Based upon the above data though, I'd be more inclined to have the 50 yard zero, but confirm at 100. I like the idea of the trajectory of my bullet being within 2" of point of aim out to 300 yards and within 4" for 400 yards.

Posted: 6/12/2006 3:54:35 AM EDT

[#6]

The 0-2 large aperture is on a different elevation plane than the small aperture. Traditionally, you would raise the elevation a few clicks (2 or 4) when switching to the large aperture (also documented in the IBZ). As john_wayne said, the large aperture is what you would typically use for CQB and the small aperture is for sighting in/long-range shots.

Posted: 6/12/2006 4:22:46 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

The BC of Federal M193's bullet is is .338. Remington UMC's 55 grain bullet is .202. The problem with using another bullet's BC (the Sierra) is that it maight not be the same. That's why your drop is calculated too low (1.6").

Cool bro, I shoot American Eagle 55gr FMJ (because I get it cheap at work). I don't know who's bullet Federal uses in these but I should find out so I can get an even better zero and ballistic chart.

Posted: 6/12/2006 4:28:07 AM EDT

[#8]

I’m just regurgitating info here that I was told by a highly respected trainer…
regarding the usefulness of a 100 yard zero ~~apparently Rangers are now using it because they feel that is all they need / engaging targets to~~.

Edit: I’ve since been told by a in-the-know source that the Rangers are using a 50/200yd zero.

Posted: 6/12/2006 4:49:41 AM EDT

[#9]

From the ammo oracle:

M193: 55gr FMJBT Ball, plain tip.

This cartridge is intended for use against personnel and unarmored targets from 5.56×45mm weapons with a 1-in-12-inch (1:12) or faster rifling twist rate (M16 family rifles and other compatible systems). Its ballistic coefficient is typically .243

M855: 62gr FMJBT Ball, green-painted tip.

This cartridge is intended for use against personnel, unarmored and light armored targets from 5.56×45mm weapons with a 1-in-10-inch (1:10) or faster rifling twist (Machine guns: M249 Minimi; Rifles: M16A2 and other compatible systems). The M855 cartridge is based on the FN-designed SS-109 bullet, and has a gilding metal-jacketed, lead alloy core bullet with a steel penetrator. The primer and case are waterproof. It was adopted by NATO in 1980 as the standard small arms ammunition for NATO forces. Its ballistic coefficient is typically 304.

Posted: 6/12/2006 5:52:38 AM EDT

[#10]

An internet search derived a number of other stated BCs for M193 from a variety of sources. Your mileage may vary.

Q3131, which is supposed to be M193, supposedly has a BC of .267.

There is a formula for determining BC. Its too much for me to deal with math-wise!

Posted: 6/12/2006 6:36:18 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
An internet search derived a number of other stated BCs for M193 from a variety of sources. Your mileage may vary.

Q3131, which is supposed to be M193, supposedly has a BC of .267.

There is a formula for determining BC. Its too much for me to deal with math-wise!

The Pointblank free software uses bullet weight, muzzle velocity, and 100yd velocity to calculate the BC but I think the whole point of a battlesight is to get it within minute of man out to 300m w/o worrying too much. Military surplus ammo or most commercial non-match ammo isnt going to be consistent enough anyhow.

Posted: 6/12/2006 6:38:04 AM EDT

[#12]

Tagged for home

Posted: 6/12/2006 6:39:35 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Military surplus ammo or most commercial non-match ammo isnt going to be consistent enough anyhow.

Truth. I am happy to hit center of mass on an "E" type shilloutte beyone 100 meters, using the Mark 1 eyeball and an EOTech.

Posted: 6/12/2006 7:53:18 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Woops, I meant to say in regards to the small peep sight vs the large peep sight that the small peep is centered slightly LOWER on the bore vs the large peep due to the longer ranges.

I like the large peep sight. The small peep sight is too blurry for me. The larger sight allows for a cleaner sight picture, IMO (focusing on the front sight, of course). To each his own, I suppose, eh? My rifle is mine, there are many like it but this one is mine.

With my nose to the CH, the 0-2 large aperture is HUGE. If the small aperture is too fuzzy for you, open your eye a little more. It should appear as an unfocused circle as you focus on the front post.

Same here.

Posted: 6/12/2006 10:37:29 AM EDT

[#15]

I basically split the santose and 100 yard method and zero at 200. It's just too much fun hitting the gong at my range at 200. It gives a pretty godd trajectory IMO.

Posted: 6/17/2006 6:54:20 AM EDT

[#16]

Thank you very much for your input. We all know things can very due to different factors, whoever this seems like VERY good general information. What sling is that on your gun?

Posted: 6/17/2006 8:24:28 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
I basically split the santose and 100 yard method and zero at 200. It's just too much fun hitting the gong at my range at 200. It gives a pretty godd trajectory IMO.

That's what Santose recommends; zeroing out at 200yd (if possible) to double check. The ranges in my area max out at 200 yd and you can shoot at 200 WITH speshul permission.

Posted: 7/1/2006 6:23:58 AM EDT

[#18]

just used this and it worked great - thanks for spreading the wealth!

@ 25 white center as it should
deadballs @ 50
deadballs @ 100 (well for my groups anyway it was deadballs)
M193 with aimpoint compM

too bad it doesn't have a white box for 200 and 300

Posted: 7/1/2006 9:13:19 PM EDT

[#19]

tag

Posted: 7/1/2006 9:49:50 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I basically split the santose and 100 yard method and zero at 200. It's just too much fun hitting the gong at my range at 200. It gives a pretty godd trajectory IMO.

That's what Santose recommends; zeroing out at 200yd (if possible) to double check. The ranges in my area max out at 200 yd and you can shoot at 200 WITH speshul permission.

The Santose IBZ method has it's crossover point at 50 yds/200 meters, which would be 220 yards.

Posted: 7/2/2006 5:32:02 AM EDT

[#21]

Question:

If my EOTech and larger rear peep sight are both zeroed at 50 meters, about where would the smaller (long distance) peep sight be zeroed to?

Posted: 7/2/2006 5:56:48 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I basically split the santose and 100 yard method and zero at 200. It's just too much fun hitting the gong at my range at 200. It gives a pretty godd trajectory IMO.

That's what Santose recommends; zeroing out at 200yd (if possible) to double check. The ranges in my area max out at 200 yd and you can shoot at 200 WITH speshul permission.

The Santose IBZ method has it's crossover point at 50 yds/200 meters, which would be 220 yards.

The M193 trajectory, when zero'd at 50 yd using the AR-15, will crossover at approximately 220 yd.

Just as an unrelated comparison, SS195 (JHP) 5.7x28 when zero'd at 50yd using the PS90, will crossover at approximately 200 yd, but still be within 3 inches of POA at 220yd/200m.

The 7.62x39 ballistics show that a 50 yd zero with an AK carbine will result in a crossover at 100 yd. I suppose that is why the AK leaf sights have marked elevation adjustments to compensate for shots out to 300m-800m.

In other words, the 50 yd battlesight method seems to work well with a variety of other weapons and calibers.

Posted: 7/11/2006 1:28:49 AM EDT

[#23]

height=8

Quoted:
For sighting your rifle in, always use the small aperture.

I shoot a 16" ar with Arms #40 flip up sight.
I was under the impression that you used the large aperture on close range and small on long range because of diffrence zero (Like on my Hk91). Is the Zero the same on both apertures? And you use use the large aperture for a faster sight picture?

Posted: 7/11/2006 3:21:48 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
For sighting your rifle in, always use the small aperture.

I shoot a 16" ar with Arms #40 flip up sight.
I was under the impression that you used the large aperture on close range and small on long range because of diffrence zero (Like on my Hk91). Is the Zero the same on both apertures? And you use use the large aperture for a faster sight picture?

When zeroing your rifle, you want to use the small aperture, regardless of what distance you are using for sighting in.

The large aperture does indeed exist for faster sight pictures at closer ranges.

Posted: 7/11/2006 3:28:39 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
For sighting your rifle in, always use the small aperture.

I shoot a 16" ar with Arms #40 flip up sight.
I was under the impression that you used the large aperture on close range and small on long range because of diffrence zero (Like on my Hk91). Is the Zero the same on both apertures? And you use use the large aperture for a faster sight picture?

The zero is not the same for both apertures. Zero out your rifle with the small aperture. Switch to the large aperture and click your rear sight UP by 2 clicks.

Posted: 7/11/2006 5:37:26 AM EDT

[#26]

"Elevation is adjusted by the front sight, and the front sight ONLY on the AR-15/M16 rifle"

This is an odd statement. Elevation for range is of course adjusted with the elevation wheel of the A2 rear sight. Perhaps he should have added 'FOR SIGHTING IN'. I'm sure everyone realizes that once the weapon is sighted in using the ballistic trajectory of your choice (100, 200 or 300 zero), the front sight is not moved until there is a change of ammunition or other reason requiring a re-zero.
I've decided to stay with Santose's IBZ which seems to match my 16" carbine and my dim old eyes about as well as could be expected. This of course requires re-setting the rear sight to 2 clicks below 300. If the 100 yd zero using the 25 yd target provided does not require re-setting the rear sight, that would in my mind be a distinct advantage.

Posted: 7/11/2006 9:50:42 AM EDT

[#27]

In context....

Quoted:

Quoted:
When you are talking about ajusting you sights to make your rounds fall at a 100 yard zero, do you suggest moving the front or rear sight, and what should i start off at on the back sight.

Elevation is adjusted by the front sight, and the front sight ONLY on the AR-15/M16 rifle. The rear sight is used strictly to adjust for windage. If you are using an A2 style sight (either through a detachable carry handle or a good sight like the LMT A2 sight) then you should do all sighting in with the wheel set to it's normal setting, 3 or 3/6. (Depending on the sight)

Posted: 7/11/2006 10:12:50 AM EDT

[#28]

Context is everything, and many people forget that.

Posted: 7/11/2006 2:47:46 PM EDT

[#29]

I have mine set for the 25yard zero, but will give this a try just to do something different. thanks for the info.

Posted: 7/12/2006 5:04:44 AM EDT

[#30]

thanks for the target!

Posted: 7/17/2006 9:37:24 AM EDT

[#31]

OK, I was a little leary on a differnt zero than the 100 yd. Well I came across this thread. I looked into the Santos 50/200 m zero. Well, I went to the range with my new Oly today. I sighted it in at 50 yds. Then I went out to 100 yds. It was 1.5 inches high. I was so pleased with the zero that I put my coly H-bar to the same 50 yd zero.
It will make hunting so much easier. I will not have to think about the hold over for targets untill I get to the 300 yd mark.

I did do some more research on the Santos zero. It is NOT as effective for other rifles like bolt action styles. On the AR-15 the optics are mounted higher than the bolt action style and the Santos would not be as effective.

Posted: 7/17/2006 1:55:54 PM EDT

[#32]

Thanks for the link. I will give this a try next weekend. I am going to shoot it with a known rifle/zero set up and I also have two ARs that need zeroing.

Thanks.

Posted: 7/17/2006 2:37:16 PM EDT

[#33]

Wait a minute!

Have people forgotten how to use iron sights correctly?

The proper holding point (asuming that the target represents a human sillouette) is about at the top of the white box. The maximum ordinate should be just below the neck or about 16 inches. Unless you are sighting for head shots---where you need to know both range and trajectory both mathmatically and intuitively, the "6-o'clock" hold gives the best point-blank-range.

What happened to aim at the belt buckle concept of battle sights? Hold-over should never be necessary. If you need to hold over, the target is really out of range.

Dave

Posted: 7/17/2006 2:46:20 PM EDT

[#34]

height=8

Quoted:
OK, I was a little leary on a differnt zero than the 100 yd. Well I came across this thread. I looked into the Santos 50/200 m zero. Well, I went to the range with my new Oly today. I sighted it in at 50 yds. Then I went out to 100 yds. It was 1.5 inches high. I was so pleased with the zero that I put my coly H-bar to the same 50 yd zero.
It will make hunting so much easier. I will not have to think about the hold over for targets untill I get to the 300 yd mark.

I did do some more research on the Santos zero. It is NOT as effective for other rifles like bolt action styles. On the AR-15 the optics are mounted higher than the bolt action style and the Santos would not be as effective.

For hunting with iron sights, determine what your target size is (often 10 inches for deer, 6-8 inches for coyote) and then find in trajectory tables the maximum ordinate which equals the target size. The maximum ordinate ocurrs about 2/3 the sight in distance: wher the bullet meets the top of the blade. Then use a 6-o'clock hold on the killzone.

The range will surprise you. If you think you need to hold over, then you really need to get closer.

Dave

Posted: 7/18/2006 4:15:00 PM EDT

[#35]

I guess that I should mention that I used a scope on my Oly. I do not have iron sights on my k16, just the 3-12 Redfield scope . The ballistics still work form the Santos charts. That is why I mentioned the Hold over after 300 yds.
Honestly, I probably will will not be shooting over 200 yds.

Posted: 7/18/2006 8:02:15 PM EDT

[#36]

Here is the ballistics that I have come up with. It is an edited Santos style for the .223 calliber in yards.....Black hills 60 grain Nosler Partition at 3100fps out of a 16 inch barrel. (The 20 inch was almost identical.)

50 yds...........zero
100 yds .........+1.5 in
150 yds...........+1.75 in
200 yds...........+.7 in
215 yds............zero
250 yds............-2.0 in

Just remember that the .223 has a lower fps than the 5.56 rounds. Bassically I find that it is useless to shoot the .223 beyound the 250 yd range. There is just too much bullet drop and loss of energy to make it worth while, esp for hunting.
Yes, I do use my .223 for hunting whitetails and hogs. Let's not forget to shoot smaller game also.

Posted: 7/19/2006 4:46:34 AM EDT

[#37]

Good info - thanks.

Posted: 7/19/2006 7:03:13 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Just remember that the .223 has a lower fps than the 5.56 rounds. Bassically I find that it is useless to shoot beyound the 250 yd range. Too much bullet drop to make it worth while

Keep in mind the elevation wheel adjustments were designed for meters and not yards (i.e. 3 = 300m, not 300 yd).

Posted: 7/19/2006 9:00:46 AM EDT

[#39]

That is why I posted it in yards. Not everyone has the iron sights. Some have just scopes, like on my gun. I just took the priciple of the Santos and converted it to the yards for the .223 load.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 100 Yard Zero Target (Page 2 of 2)

AR-15 » Optics, Mounts, and Sights

AR Sponsor:

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us