Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 7/31/2003 12:18:55 PM EST
Can someone explain for me the problems you run into (trajectory?) when you start mounting scopes or using iron sights that are placed very high above the bore? I have always heard it said that the closer your sights are to the bore of the gun the more accurate you will be with your rifle. Is this true? If so, why? What is best, high or low? If low is best, why would you mount any sights as high as the carry handle? I know that with the AR15 with the way the stock is designed you really can't lower the iron sights any more than they are or you wouldn't be able to see through them. If lower is better, why didn't then design the rifle so that the irons could be closer to the bore? Am I making any sense here?
Link Posted: 7/31/2003 1:30:17 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/31/2003 4:37:39 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/31/2003 4:39:01 PM EST by DaPhotoGuy]
Originally Posted By Troy: It's trigonometry. Assuming the line of sight on a rifle is level, the line of the bore has to be tilted up slightly in order for the bullet to cross the line of sight. The bullet's path will be a curve, since it starts out pointing slightly up, and gravity will pull it down. The closer the line of sight is to the line of the bore, the greater the distance that the bullet's flightpath will be nearly tracking the line of sight. As you increase the height of the sights, the barrel has to be angled up further in order to get the bullet to cross the line of sight at the same distance (say 50m). Because of the increased angle, the path of the bullet won't be nearly as close to the line of sight. You can prove this by plugging numbers into a ballistic calculator. With everything else the same, and zeroing at 50m, calculate the difference from zero at 100m, 200m, and 400m with the height of the sights at 2". Run the same calculations with the height at 3", and note how much further from zero the bullet path is at 100m, 200m, and 400m. -Troy
View Quote
So, if I interpret what you said, then it IS best to have your sights closer to the barrel. If that is true then maybe someone else can answer the other question. [b]If lower is better, why didn't they design the rifle so that the irons could be closer to the bore?[/b] To add another question, why would you WANT your ACOG on a carry handle instead of on a flat top.
Link Posted: 8/1/2003 11:09:05 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/1/2003 11:27:30 AM EST
Originally Posted By Troy: A straight stock significantly reduces muzzle flip, making it much easier to maintain muzzle control during full-auto or rapid semi-auto fire.
View Quote
Thanks, that explains the straight stock question. But, on that note, couldn't the designers made a regular stock with a compensator on the barrel? Oh well, would have, should have, could have.
Closer to the bore is better, yes, but there has to be SOME distance between the two, otherwise the barrel can't be angled enough to cause the bullet to cross the line of sight.
View Quote
I don't really agree with this. I have several guns with iron sights sitting right on the barrel (about as close as you can get) and they have no problem.
Link Posted: 8/1/2003 2:28:32 PM EST
First, no flame intended (for some strange reason I always come off sounding like some know-it-all jerk when I post, so my apologies in advance). Second, Troy is correct. If you think about it, even where your sights are right on the barrel, the line of sight is still some distance above the line of the bore (the thickness of the barrel plus the height of the sights themselves). Troy is also correct when he says that the AR-15 is about compromises. Stoner could have designed the rifle with some drop in the stock so that sights could be lower, but decided instead for a design that would make the rifle inherently easier to control in rapid fire. You are certainly entitled to disagree with the design, and many do, but it is also important to understand the reasons behind he design before doing so. Again, no flame intended. Have a good weekend. I have to go shoot now.
Link Posted: 8/1/2003 2:28:51 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/2/2003 12:29:48 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/2/2003 12:31:12 PM EST by DaPhotoGuy]
Originally Posted By Troy: Those sights aren't in line with the bore, right? That's what I'm talking about. Sights need SOME elevation from the line of the bore, and the rear sight needs to be slightly higher than the front sight. -Troy
View Quote
[:\] Please, don't get mad at this, but your original statement about needing SOME distance between bore and sights is unnecessary because no matter WHERE you mount a sight on a rifle you will have SOME distance between it and the bore, right? At least I can't think of any way to be looking straight down the middle of the bore to sight the rifle. Thanks again for the info you've provided on this topic.
Top Top