Yes, bullet trajectory is better for a military application with high sights. For sporting purposes closer to the barrel with a .22 rifle is better. Since the bullet is rising with a high sight picture to strike point of impact at say 25 yards, the bullet will again impact point of aim at 200 or 300 yards before the rifle hits "low". It will hit high at ranges between these two points.. This is OK for big game with a big kill zone but lousy for small game when 2 or 3 inches high or low will mean a miss. If a squirrel peeks out at 10 feet you would hit low because the bullet is rising to line of sight with such a set up. For plinking it's no big deal. Most soldiers are not really experienced shooters and they need every bit of help to make hits under stress they can get. rc
For both hunters and soldiers who zero once and use the rifle at unknown distances it's better to have the sights closer to the bore for a flatter trajectory. The reason the the sights on rifles like the M16 are so high is because they have to be so you can see through them. It's a side-effect of having the straight stock to reduce muzzle climb on full auto.
For a competition rifle shooting at known distances the trajectory doesn't matter because you adjust for each target anyway. The height on the Tubb2000 is probably just for comfort/convenience in the posture it's used in. (And perhaps because it looks like it's based on an AR-15.)
With sights higher from the barrel, the common soldier can maintain the same sight picture from zero to about 200 yards and have the bullet within a few inches above or below the line of sight making for a more useful battle sight. Trajectory is the same regardless of sight height but how bullet trajectory crosses the line of sight can be improved with higher sights so that the bullet is traveling within a few inches above or below the line of sight out to the farthest effective range of the caliber. A .223 with bc of .30 starting out at 3100fps and sighted for 100 yards with sights 1.5 inches high will hit about 3 inches low at 200 yards. When sighted for 200 yards the same rifle fires 1.5 inches high at 100 yards and 7.2 inches low at 300 yards. If sights were only .5 inches from the bore, then when sighted for 100 yards, there would be a greater actual drop from the line of sight at 300 yards than 7.2 inches. The reason target shooters can do a lot of strange things with sights is because they are ajusting the rifle to hit to the sight at a particular range. Unless the scope is parallell to the barrel and the rifle and scope level, then the bullet would hit to one side or the other before and after the range at which the gun is sighted. There is a reason that sights are high on the AR 15 and it's not just because of stock design. The designer also considered the trajectory of the caliber. rc
There is a largely brainwashed group way of thinking that sights closer to the barrel helps, no it doesn't. A "Joe" that studies his guns trajectory is the slightest already knows bout hold over at short range, it IS only the amount the sight is over the barrel. Secondly any cant of the rifle is 100X more important to consistency and fine accuracy that sight height. There is no common or pro about it, I think some out door magazine writer "back in the fifties" must have mentioned it for some burr in the butt reason, now everyone has an "excuse." Rifle fit, build, shooting form, and shooting conditions are things to worry about, put the sight height issue in file 13.
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.