Zeroing of weapons
-
I have completed my reservist cycle as an infantryman and I have zeroed weapons more times than I can remember.
Yet, there is one question I want to ask:
When I zero my weapon, am I just zeroing the weapon itself, or am I zeroing the weapon to MY eyes?
In other words, after I zero my weapon, can someone else - say a left-hander - pick up my weapon and shoot accurately with it? Or vice versa can I pick up someone else's zeroed weapon and shoot accurately with it?
May sound like a dumb question but I ask this every time.
If I go for ICT or BCT and I draw a weapon that was just days ago zeroed by someone else, how come I gotta zero it again? Therefore I suspect it is because every one's eyes are different and you have to zero the weapon to YOUR eyes.
Please shed light. -
I also want to ask .. in war how do they zero the M16 ah?
-
weapon is zeroed according to individual's eyesight...
zeroing takes only a few shots, less than 30 mins to complete... so no issue during urgent missions... -
I guess they are zeroing the weapon to our eyes.
-
Yes its to your eyes. The accuracy of the weapon is constant. There is no such thing as zeroing to increase the inherent accuracy of the weapon.Originally posted by tvdog:I have completed my reservist cycle as an infantryman and I have zeroed weapons more times than I can remember.
Yet, there is one question I want to ask:
When I zero my weapon, am I just zeroing the weapon itself, or am I zeroing the weapon to MY eyes?
In other words, after I zero my weapon, can someone else - say a left-hander - pick up my weapon and shoot accurately with it? Or vice versa can I pick up someone else's zeroed weapon and shoot accurately with it?
May sound like a dumb question but I ask this every time.
If I go for ICT or BCT and I draw a weapon that was just days ago zeroed by someone else, how come I gotta zero it again? Therefore I suspect it is because every one's eyes are different and you have to zero the weapon to YOUR eyes.
Please shed light.
(remember someone on this forum once said that their warrant officer declared that he had zeroed his weapon so thoroughly, he was aiming to place all his rounds through one single hole) -
Not to ur eyes only. When zeroing weapons such as the M-16, it also aligns the weapon to ur cheek position in relation to the butt. Which means, whenever u pick up ur M-16, u need to position ur M-16 to urself the same way u position it everytime. Thats to maintain consistency.
Naturally, if u zero it to ur right master eye, trying to shoot out from ur left shoulder using ur left eye to aim, would result in a poor shot. Unless u have a reflex "red-dot"sight or smth.
As in any weapon that uses old school aiming, front-rear sight aperture.
Combat zerping? Just aim off the target approximately i guess. Close target aim lower. Shot landing left, shoot right a bit. For static targets this would work lar.. haha. -
I would somewhat agree with the theory. But this is due to human differences and error.Originally posted by Shotgun:Not to ur eyes only. When zeroing weapons such as the M-16, it also aligns the weapon to ur cheek position in relation to the butt. Which means, whenever u pick up ur M-16, u need to position ur M-16 to urself the same way u position it everytime. Thats to maintain consistency.
Naturally, if u zero it to ur right master eye, trying to shoot out from ur left shoulder using ur left eye to aim, would result in a poor shot. Unless u have a reflex "red-dot"sight or smth.
As in any weapon that uses old school aiming, front-rear sight aperture.
Combat zerping? Just aim off the target approximately i guess. Close target aim lower. Shot landing left, shoot right a bit. For static targets this would work lar.. haha.
As opposed to some beliefs, a weapon is never always accurate. Even the best made sniper rifles will defer for the next one. So a purely theorotical definition of zeroing is to align the front aperture to the rear apperture such that the round will hit a fixed point. For M16, we are taught that the round should hit just above the front apperture. This is where the human difference come in, because everyone's alignment is different and everyone's "point" where they want the round to hit is lightly different.
However, suppose a mechanically zeroed weapon.. Say on a fixed mount.. with a video cam, rear and front apperture aligned.. and zeroed..
Any shooter who aims in the same will have the round land on the same spot. -
Wrong. Ye must practice the correct shooting fundamentals too !Originally posted by nefnuy:However, suppose a mechanically zeroed weapon.. Say on a fixed mount.. with a video cam, rear and front apperture aligned.. and zeroed..
Any shooter who aims in the same will have the round land on the same spot. -
Weapons no need to zero then best.
-
I think you have confused accuracy with ....??? Accuracy of a weapon refers to how consistently the round behaves after it leaves the barrel. So If i fire, and the round hits above the target, in a perfectly accurate weapon, if i aim at the same point and all else being equal, the round will hit at the same place.Originally posted by nefnuy:I would somewhat agree with the theory. But this is due to human differences and error.
As opposed to some beliefs, a weapon is never always accurate. Even the best made sniper rifles will defer for the next one. So a purely theorotical definition of zeroing is to align the front aperture to the rear apperture such that the round will hit a fixed point. For M16, we are taught that the round should hit just above the front apperture. This is where the human difference come in, because everyone's alignment is different and everyone's "point" where they want the round to hit is lightly different.
However, suppose a mechanically zeroed weapon.. Say on a fixed mount.. with a video cam, rear and front apperture aligned.. and zeroed..
Any shooter who aims in the same will have the round land on the same spot.
eg. At 100m
I expect an M16 to be very accurate. If I aim at the chest of fig 11, and the round hits the head, then because the M16 is accurate, I know that if i aim at the chest again, the round will hit the head.
A revolver on the other hand is not as accurate as a rifle. At 100+m if i aim at the same point, I can expect there to be a variation as to where the round falls due. If i aim at the chest, at the round hits the leg, the next time round i fire may hit the ground, etc.
Zeroing is so that the round will fall where you aim at. It has nothing to do with the accuracy of the weapon. Maybe we can say that zeroing improves the accuracy of the firer since he does not have to offset his aim point. It improves his accuracy because he does not have to estimate where to aim. Rear sight, front sight, Boom! No need to aim left, or up or down. His inherent marksmenship ability is not improved simply because he has zeroed his weapon. -
OK. So it is universally accepted by everyone here that when zeroing a weapon - an M16 for example - you are actually tuning the sights to YOUR individual eyesight.
Right?
So this means if I pick up my mate's M-16, I'd probably shoot bobo.
Which brings me to the next question:
What about this SAR-21 being "factory-zeroed"? Is it no longer necessary to zero to the individual? -
Let put it this way, all the people eye are not perfect thus cockeye a little left or right or up or down.Originally posted by tvdog:I have completed my reservist cycle as an infantryman and I have zeroed weapons more times than I can remember.
Yet, there is one question I want to ask:
When I zero my weapon, am I just zeroing the weapon itself, or am I zeroing the weapon to MY eyes?
In other words, after I zero my weapon, can someone else - say a left-hander - pick up my weapon and shoot accurately with it? Or vice versa can I pick up someone else's zeroed weapon and shoot accurately with it?
May sound like a dumb question but I ask this every time.
If I go for ICT or BCT and I draw a weapon that was just days ago zeroed by someone else, how come I gotta zero it again? Therefore I suspect it is because every one's eyes are different and you have to zero the weapon to YOUR eyes.
Please shed light.
What we mean by zeroing is to make the sights of the rifle to suit or cater for our cockeye . Thus zeroing is to suit that person who is zeroing it only.
Thus if another person pick up it, his eyes is totally different thus it is of no use to him, unless he zero it to his eyes.
For Sar-21, the special is in the scope. It make use of technology in the scope which auto lead the eye to the center for the scope thus take away your eye cockeye ... factor. Thus zeroing is not needed as scope is already machine alighted with rifle barrel in factory. -
Don't let the default factory of the sar-21 fool u. Still must adopt proper firing posture for the weapon in order to use it accurately. Trying shoot the Sar-21 like how u shoot ur m-16 won't give u a good hit rate either. =D
I'm currently doing archery now, and i have to zero my bow every week. Same thing applies. Zeroing by right would allow every round to land on the same spot IF you release perfectly. For a rifle, a sturdy grip, + applied breathingt technique, posture, and trigger squeeze, if identical at every squeeze, will result in VERY tight groupings, if not the shots landing one on top the other.
Of course, nobody is perfect, hence the shots will always seperate. -
Actually, that IS an interesting question that tvdog raised.
Theoretically speaking, the objective of zeroing is to set the intercept of two lines at the intended point of impact. The first of these lines is the trajectory of the projectile. The second line traces the path from the targetted spot to the tip of the foresight to the centre of the rear sight to the shooter's eye.
It would make sense that for iron sights, since the layout and size of the face varies from person to person (in particular the distance between the cheek and the eye), zeroing is an individual thing, and the foresight height has to accommodate for how high the shooter's eye sits, and the rearsight for the amount of tilt of the shooter's head, in order for the second line to be adjusted correctly.
Now how that gels with something like a SAR-21's scope is a different matter altogether - regardless of what angle you take to look through the sight, the crosshairs shoudl still stay on the same spot, and only the field of view should be affected by not looking directly through the sight. Once the sight is zeroed, would the crosshairs then not point at the right spot regardless of who is looking through it? Any differences in accuracy should be caused by the shooter's manner of handling the weapon. -
when the time comes, as long as u see ur enemy, any part of him in dat circle just fire...
-
Well, thankfully its not like the cocked-up MILEs or TES system, though realistic, the most friggin' stupid thing is that, if you aim at the centre-mass or stomach, you cannot "kill" that guy. You must hit those sensors then considered as hit.Tt's just silly...
-
is that very f@!#ed up?? Simulation ultimately will still be simulation wad... unless real bullets are fired then different story. Treat the absence of buttons in certain areas as missed shots under combat-stress.
I heard some units used to blacktape up their sensors for atec... hahaha now thats F!@#ed up. -
I would like to further add to Ged's comments and say that Weapon accuracy is also affected by rounds.Originally posted by Gedanken:Actually, that IS an interesting question that tvdog raised.
Theoretically speaking, the objective of zeroing is to set the intercept of two lines at the intended point of impact. The first of these lines is the trajectory of the projectile. The second line traces the path from the targetted spot to the tip of the foresight to the centre of the rear sight to the shooter's eye.
It would make sense that for iron sights, since the layout and size of the face varies from person to person (in particular the distance between the cheek and the eye), zeroing is an individual thing, and the foresight height has to accommodate for how high the shooter's eye sits, and the rearsight for the amount of tilt of the shooter's head, in order for the second line to be adjusted correctly.
Now how that gels with something like a SAR-21's scope is a different matter altogether - regardless of what angle you take to look through the sight, the crosshairs shoudl still stay on the same spot, and only the field of view should be affected by not looking directly through the sight. Once the sight is zeroed, would the crosshairs then not point at the right spot regardless of who is looking through it? Any differences in accuracy should be caused by the shooter's manner of handling the weapon.
Typical army rounds should enable 4-5 cm grouping, it can rarely get you into 2-3 cm groupings.
If the grouping is erratic, it is usually User-handling issues. If the User is consistent on other weapons, but not this particular one, then it is most likely weapon issue. The barrel could have been made with too high tolerance or the sighting mechanism is not holding its boresight. Usually, weapon is old. -
Agreed, SG, weapon handling and the state of the weapon itself affect accuracy, although I'd treat zeroing and grouping as two separate issues. If the grouping is fine and the zeroing is off, a competent shooter should be able to offset the aim and hit the target with some degree of reliability. On the other hand, if the grouping is off, the weapon cannot be zeroed effectively.
-
Agree that weapon handling basics are important, without basics, grouping will vary greatly. I have come accross people who cannot shoot the Fig. 11 target at 25m even if their lives depended on it!Originally posted by Si Geena:Typical army rounds should enable 4-5 cm grouping, it can rarely get you into 2-3 cm groupings.
If the grouping is erratic, it is usually User-handling issues.
Also agree that non-rifle match rounds, inconsistency seldom allow 2-3 cm at 100m (I assume you meant 100m bcos I have seen 4.5cm at 100m and 1.2cm at 25m, no kidding).
BTW zeoring is to align the bullet trag to your line of sight. It differs because of (i) the amount of muscle/fat on your cheek, (ii) how far you hold the rear sight from your eye, (iii) how you 'sit' the rifle butt into the hollow of your shoulder, (iv) how your squeeze/snap the trigger, and/or (iv) whether you hold your breath completely, half or not at all (recommended 1/3 breath out). Each and everyone has a different series of combinations of the above. -
That sounds logical and is consistent with my experience of using the rifle. I just randomly selected a rifle and went for a fam shoot. At 100m for the day shoot, I got 19/20, for night 18/20 w/o any zeroing.Originally posted by Gedanken:Actually, that IS an interesting question that tvdog raised.
Theoretically speaking, the objective of zeroing is to set the intercept of two lines at the intended point of impact. The first of these lines is the trajectory of the projectile. The second line traces the path from the targetted spot to the tip of the foresight to the centre of the rear sight to the shooter's eye.
It would make sense that for iron sights, since the layout and size of the face varies from person to person (in particular the distance between the cheek and the eye), zeroing is an individual thing, and the foresight height has to accommodate for how high the shooter's eye sits, and the rearsight for the amount of tilt of the shooter's head, in order for the second line to be adjusted correctly.
Now how that gels with something like a SAR-21's scope is a different matter altogether - regardless of what angle you take to look through the sight, the crosshairs shoudl still stay on the same spot, and only the field of view should be affected by not looking directly through the sight. Once the sight is zeroed, would the crosshairs then not point at the right spot regardless of who is looking through it? Any differences in accuracy should be caused by the shooter's manner of handling the weapon.
That said, some people had great difficulties using the rifle. Either their zeroing was way off or they did not know how to use the scope properly. Some were even hitting the ground about 30m in front! -
Theoretically, we're supposed to be using both eyes open, and using our master eye to stay on the scope.Originally posted by lwflee:That sounds logical and is consistent with my experience of using the rifle. I just randomly selected a rifle and went for a fam shoot. At 100m for the day shoot, I got 19/20, for night 18/20 w/o any zeroing.
That said, some people had great difficulties using the rifle. Either their zeroing was way off or they did not know how to use the scope properly. Some were even hitting the ground about 30m in front!
In practise, many users still close one eye to focus. This is not required, as the scope is different from the iron sight approach. And if practised, becomes a habit that is incredibly difficult to remove. -
All I want to say is that if a person before you zeroed the weapon and the 2nd person is to fire it, the round should land in the position as the first person have zeroed it.. that is if the the 2nd shooter adjust his natural position to align the front and rear apperture correctly..
By accuracy of the weapon.. I do not know the experts or professional's definition.. I mean that when a weapon is zeroed today, after it goes back to the armskote... 2 months later they might be a little off...
Additionally, each weapon is a little different from the next..
I did not mean that they will go through a single hole when fired... -
Thought I'd chime in here for a few brief comments.
If the rifle is "zeroed" through the iron sights using a particular sight picture, then that rifle should shoot to the same POI with subsequent users if they adopt the same sight picture that was used to zero the rifle. The iron sights and barrel are attached to the upper receiver and are fixed in relation to each other, so it does not matter how the shooter's head is situated with respect to the rifle, as long the dominant (aiming) eye is in the correct position to acquire the same sight picture each and every time.
In practice, however, not everyone might use the same sight picture. For example, one shooter might prefer to have the entire bullseye sit atop the front sight post, while another might prefer that the top of the front sight post horizontally bisect the exact center of the bullseye. When zeroing a firearm, the shooter's preferred sight picture has to be accommodated.
Other factors that might work against achieving a repeatable zero in a particular firearm might include:
Variances in the ammunition. Manufacturing variances in the mass production of ammunition (coupled with the occasional lapse in quality control) might result in inconsistent powder charges, projectile weights and seating depths. The resulting variations in muzzle velocity would cause the POI to wander from the POA. Granted, the 5.56mm cartridge is a very flat-shooting round, and differences in muzzle velocity might not change the POI significantly at 100 yards, but at 200 yards and beyond, the changes in POI do become noticeable.
Military-issue and military-surplus ammunition aren't exactly known for holding tight manufacturing tolerances. I've measured variances of up to 400 fps with milsurp M193 (55 gr.) ammunition (and slightly less with M855 [62 gr.] rounds) out of the barrel of the same AR. That's why AR shooters who want to achieve a repeatable zero to maximize accuracy, handload their own ammunition.
Weather conditions. Wind, temperature and humidity do, to varying degrees, affect the ballistics of the projectile. A gusty crosswind would wreak havoc with your POI, especially at extended shooting distances. An explanation of how temperature and humidity affect ballistics can be found here.
Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view), it's always hot and humid in Singapore, so the effects of temperature and humidity can almost be regarded as a constant.
MG -
in theory the tip and aperture of front and rear sights are centre and along an axis parallel to the line of sight sticking to the theory of a perfect line of travel of a bullet fired from the rifle. no zeroing is needed in such a theory. however there are many physical aspects that is present to thwart this theory since the rifle shall be used in a planet with gravitational pull, various environmental change aspects and in the hands of a human being and not robots.
Thus i personality feel that zeroing is more a task to check the centre position of the sights..sometimes some rifle zeroings are clicked to such an award position that immediately u know there must be something wrong with the shooter or the rifle itself. in Sg's infantry unit the M-16 was our main rifle and has a standard specificaition and accuray rating based on the perfect line of sight theory so say at 300m range if the firer adopt the basic firing fundamentals and with some fine tuning of the rifle sights condition through zeroing the rounds (if also at a constant loading) should find its mark on a large stationary target board.
The newer SAR21 has a scope with cross hair sights so require minimum or no zeroing at all..u just have to get to know the positions of your sights when aiming at a target from a greater distance, judging the weather/ wind condition since the velocity of the projectile gets lower as it travels away to the limit of its effective range, going downwards to the ground level or swept left or right against the direction off wind travel etc.
may want to read this