Sonar

I must say Classic is my prefered ver. as well. I dont like the new interface in 3. But there is a good community behind 3 making some really good missions.

Quote: Originally Posted by Sonar View Post Wiki is useless I didnt realise they gave degree's on wiki being usless????? I suspect you probably think you have a degree in ....psychology, only at a guess. Wait a minute didnt you say 0.18. Sorry but I think YOU need to see a psychiatrist! End of argument. I have no time for people who cannot have a discussion without reverting to swearing to try and get their point across. Oh btw MOA means Minute of Arc Not bullet dispersion as you would have everyone think. again from#153 I appear to have a better understanding of the word "means" that you do. Your statment of would be better written as " MOA, as an example 4MOA means......" Remember to some people here english is a second language, so they dont always understand what we are saying.{quote] §13) Write in EnglishPlease write only in English on the public forums. Avoid writing in any other language or any kind of slang or txt speak since the majority of the members most likely won't understand. In private messages you are of course welcome to write in any language you wish. One of the forum rules I believe.ta ta and go read your your notes for your degree and see what it says about people who swear.:nener:

So let me get this right... I'm wrong! MOA dons't mean Minute of Arc, it means bullet disperion over range. Wow that just destoryed 30 years of competion shooting and a 5 year engineering degree. So the next time someone says that something is out by 4 mins I have to tell them that we can fix the problem by shooting at it.:p Boy you thought my logic was bad. ps I dont recall having a fit over anything so you are not going gain anything by misquoting me or him. And its 0.047 not .18

WAY TO GO Placebo

Um ahhh thats cheating:D I know we did it, saved a load of work. Mind you we did find some references were wrong, not many though.

We were not allowed to use it in Uni because it is uncontrolled. A recent court Decision (State v Flores Texas 2008) ruled that Wikipeadia cannot be used because it uncontrolled. And a lot of pm's to me have congradulated my refusial to accept wiki entires as proof. As for the sources listed, again uncontrolled.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Boobies!

Never read Shooters Weekly....any good?

Wiki is useless No you didnt! So dont go quoting stuff at me when you dont even quote yourself correctly. No your wern't nowhere have you explained what MOA means. You havnt even said where you pulled the 5% from. So again dont quote me until you can quote yourself. Anyone reading this thread knows I explained MOA not you. Remember this from post #156 And this bit from #185 Totally relevent, My initial statement was You claimed in post #153 So I brought up the point of it being poorly manufactured as an argument against it's supposed accuracy and compared it to rifles that are of almost identical design. I have maitained that "CommBloc Weapons are in accurate" and I will maintain this stance. As I have said I have used them, and whilst I cannot prove it to you, my "OPINION" is based on experience not something I read on a uncontrolled website.

I am mearly quoting you using the incorrect application of MOA, you said and I quote "4 moa means 4 inches dispersion every 100 yards" Using figures of 3-5 MOA confuses the argument and relating MOA to dispersion confuses the argument. And "niggling" over 1/2 an inch was proving that MOA is not a constant but a variable. If you are going to table an argument table it correctly. I personally would have said "...that a AK will group 3 to 5inches (76mm to 127mm) at 100yds(91.4m)" so the younglings who dont understand ballistics yet would at least know what we are talking about. You seemed to have decided to start an argument with a competion shooter....not the best idea you have had thus far:D. If you want, I can go right into the exeterior ballistics of a projectile in flight and really confuse things. But for the sake of a simplfied argument... Soviet era weapons are inaccurate not because of ammo or skill on the part of the user but because of quality control....they didnt have any. And for people interested in the Tank debate this also applied. I have sat inside a RUSSIAN MADE T80, and they are crap. Poor welding, no shock mounts on electronics, exposed wiring and fittings not secured properly. You can have the best armour in the world but if it isnt fitted properly it will fail. But dont misunderstand this is not to say the AK was a bad rifle, just a poorly manufactured one. The Finnish Valmet M and Rk series and the Israeli Galil ( a hybrid of the M16 and AK) are very well made and therefore very effective . side note: the M76 was calibred in 7.62x 39, 5,56x45NATO and 7.62x51NATO but not in 5.45X39. And all other variants are still 7.62x39mm. I wonder why? MER of a AK47 was 200yds AKM 350m (yes a differnet scale) 20-60% increase in MER is +180Metres therefore a MER of????? thats right 530m. How is that possible in a proji thats 5.45 out of a necked down 7.62x36 cartridge.....I doubt it very much esp when a 7.62x51 either from a M14 or a L1A1 has a mer of 300m and a battle range of 600. English translation follows: MER=Maximum Effective Range AK 47= a rifle 200yds= a distance AKM= a rifle 5.45x39mm is the new Russian Calibre they take a 7.62x39mm cartridge and squeeze the neck ( the bit where the bullet or proji goes) down from 7.63mm to 5.46mm, in shooters terms this is called wildcatting. examples are .243Ackly Improved with is a 308Win necked down to receive a .243" bullet. Make a very small bullet travel very fast with heaps of kinetic energy and heaps of speed means very accurate, I have heard of shooters with this round shooting sub 1/2MOA out to 500yds. I have a barrel for my M82 (Parker Hale 1200TX) which is 6mm BR (Bench Rest) its a 7.62x51 cartridge necked to 6mm, with it I have heard I will be able to (but not likely) shoot sub 3/4 MOA at 900 yds. M14 = 7.62x51NATO rifle used by the USMC until the M16 was forced on them....they didnt want it. L1A1= Australian and British version of the Fabrique Nationale de Herstal Fusil Automatique Leger (FN-FAL). The Belguim made 7.62x51NATO Battle Feild Rifle. Its not an Assualt rifle, it to big! And its fun when you stick a match under the sear plate....I never did this because its illegal and I was never here!:D Battle Range= The range that a squad of Infantry can shoot and expect to hit. These are not aimed shots in the sense that you can see your target but a aimed shot at an area where you target is. My point with the post is that a smaller and lighter proji shouldnt have a MER the same as a Battle range of a heavier calibre. The energy lose at range would make the smaller proji less effective. Its great if it hits the target centre chest, but usless if it dosnt penetrate. ---------- Post added at 04:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:37 AM ---------- I do apologise at this point Im getting my yds and metres mixed up and some of my facts. I unreservedly apologise for this, I should know better.:o The M14 is a brilliant rifle and the USMC didnt really want to change to the M16. The L1A1 also has a MER of 500m. But your statment about being to lunch is crap. I never said the the they shared the same casing. I said that the 5.45 uses a necked down cartridge. Again you show a profound lack of understanding about ammunition. And dont make assuptioms. The AK AKM and AK74 are innaccurate because of manufacture. My statement was in the vain of... I doubt using a smaller projectile increase the MER by 20-60%.

im am but mearly responding to the comment about a) Ak's are accurate to 3-5MOA and b) 4MOA is 4" which it is not. MER of a AK47 was 200yds AKM 350m (yes a differnet scale) 20-60% increase in MER is +18oMetres there fore a MER of????? thats right 530m. How is that possible in a proji thats 5.45 out of a necked down 762x36 cartridge.....I doubt it very much esp when a 7.62x51 either from a M14 or a L1A1 has a mer of 300m and a battle range of 600.

:p Have at you girly pants!!!

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?p=1306856#post1306856 for those who wish to battle further....have at you scoundrals!!!!

The full title is Me versus anyone on combloc weapons inaccuracy, Iraqi Republican Guard Tank Divisions and General rifle shooting(with a close look at MOA, mildot and exterior ballistic)

Totally and utterly agree with that. Here's a little known factoid. US Armay Tropps do .5 hour dry firing for every hour of live, USMC do 2 hours dry to 1 live Australian Army do 3 to 1 The Russians do 5to1. Even with inaccurate rifles Soviet infantry were better shots than US Army. The NON REPUBLICAIN GUARD Divisions were armed with Type 69. The Republicain Graud Regiments WERE armed with Babylon Lions. Which were T-72M1A. So whilst not as good as the Russian ones they were better than the Type69's. You will not see refernces to thew Sights because it is NOT confirmed ( however it has never been openly denied either) Some of them also had laser range finders, which, also, is not confirmed. The Iraqi T72's did have laminated armour on the front and slope. But my argument is that the T72 model used in game isnt accurate I used the Iraqi tanks as a reference point because it is one of the few wars where M1's came head to head with T72's. I will admit its probably not the best example, but it does annoy me when people make statments likepoorly trained and led militia using mostly T-55s and and a few T-72s constructed in Iraq with rejected Soviet parts. They wernt militia and they wernt poorly trained. The Republican Guard were enough of a threat that the Airwar proir to Desert Storm specifcally targeted RG Divisons from the outset. You dont waste Billions of Dollars of Ordanance on militia poorly trained or otherwise.(well the USAAF wastes it on who they want really:D) Some people forget I served during GW1 a point I made earlier and asked the person if they had served....still no answer. You obviously dont understand exterior ballistics, accurary may incresae range but it wont increase kinetic energy, and an increase of 60% is only 180 odd yds. Boy and I thought my maths skills were bad!:D To the MOA question roughly yes accuratly no. 1moa at 100yds is 1.047".so for every increase of range and/or angle it incresases by that much again. So at 1000yds its not a 10 inch increase but an 10and 1/2 inch increase and when you are shooting at that range 1/2 inch is the differnece between life and death. I know Im being anal about this but it is fact and facts I have had to work with. If I make a mistake with a calculation on elevation and windage at +500yds it is the differnce between a vbull and 5 points and I will lose a competition. That is the one saving grace now, because before if I made the same mistake I would lose my head!