Александр (mr_aug) wrote,

Возможно, кто-то помнит - я постил про норвежского солдата, который описывал свою НК416
1 2
А вот и продолжение темы под катом.

1)  At another board I frequent, there was a discussion about the utility of select fire capability in an assault rifle. I am of the opinion that well aimed rapid semi-automatic fire is the way to go.

Anyways, I referenced this video of me shooting the 1/2 & 1/2 drill:

FILE0061 - YouTube

and said that I was going to shoot the drill in FA as well, too see what the results were. Here are the vids are:

Run 1, fully automatic, 10 round burst:

FILE0075 - YouTube

20 meters: 1st shot @ 1.33, total time 1.86
10 meters: 1st shot @ 1.13, total time 1.66
5 meters: 1st shot @ 0.98, total time 1.50

Run 2, fully automatic, short bursts:

FILE0076 - YouTube

20 meters: 1st shot @ 1.15, total time 3.04
10 meters: 1st shot @ 1.13, total time 2.66
5 meters: 1st shot @ 1.04, total time 2.00

I am faster with my first shot, and more accurate with semi-auto fire overall. With FA, I get shots down range faster obviously, but if the target was moving or smaller I think it would be more difficult with FA. The same with engaging more than one target.

In addition, it was a bit awkward flipping the safety to FA, and I believe that is the cause of the increased time use.

You will score hits, but you will be faster with the first shot and more accurate with SA.

2) Did some shooting today; a reactive target lane and some balloon shooting at ~300 meters:
Target size:

Target view:

Shooter view film:

Target view film:

These are of the same run.

Reactive target lane:

This drill being shot was a result of the discussion on SA vs FA capability mentioned in a previous post.

The drill didn't provide any concrete results as far as time to target engagement is concerned, or hits on target. The only thing that could be measured was total time for completion, and I don't find that relevant.

You can watch the vids for yourselves, and maybe come to a conclusion as to the utility of FA. My conclusion to follow later in the post.

I shot it 4 different ways:

Aimpoint - FA
Aimpoint - SA

The drill, as described in the marksmanship manual, states gear and amount of ammunition:

-2nd line; I shot it in 4th line (ruck)
-30 rounds distributed between 2 mags, I had 15 in each

My gear as worn when I shot the drills:

Shooting this drill in my 4th line gear really confirmed why I hate fighting with a ruck on my back; it's completely useless. Especially uphill, as this particlar range requires.

The videos:

Aimpoint - FA

Aimpoint - SA


NOTE: As you can see, my rear BUIS is not up when I engaged the first target. It was most likely knocked down as I was donning my pack. I engaged the target by using a semi-point shoot/front sight reference technique.



-The Aimpoint is, in my eyes, superior to the BUIS. It is faster to track onto a target, it is easier to stay on target and getting a good enough sight picture is less demanding. From 10 meters and in, a highly trained shooter might not notice significant differences. For beginner/novice shooters, a red dot will provide better results faster. The point shooting method was inadvertently needed on the first target during my BUIS-FA run, and clearly showed that it is crap. For shooting on the move a red dot is superior.

-You can have a positive effect on target utilizing both FA and SA modes of fire. However, ammo consumption is markedly higher on FA; I only changed magazines when shooting FA. The effect of the additional rounds when firing bursts is debatable. My view is that I can achieve the same effect by shooting rapid single shots.

I shot all the drills to the best of my ability, and did not try to influence the results to support my preference; something that should be quite clear from my horrible shooting at target 4 during my Aimpoint - SA run. And the next time I shoot this drill, the ruck stays in the car!

3) On my last outing, describe above, I shot a few 100 meter groups, to see what kind of accuracy I could get.

Shot from the prone, supported on a ruck, using an Aimpoint CompM4 With 3X magnifier:

Group 1:

Group 2:

Group 3:

Group 4:

These four groups were my last for the day, and when I returned home and started doing my maintenance, I found that the handguard was loose. Don't know if that had any effect. I have over 10k through my rifle.


I went out today, to shoot some more groups for accuracy, to see if I could shoot better than last time. The weather wasn't really ideal for shooting at range, but I was able to shoot four groups before it got real bad.

It would seem that my performance on the previous groups I shot was due to me sucking, and not the gun.

The previous groups were shot in full gear, the groups I shot today were shot slick. I also felt that my rest/support was a bit better today. I did however not use my 3x magnifier today, and shot better for some strange reason.

Group 1:

Group 2:

Group 3:

Group 4:

Group 3 was shot a bit fast, as I felt I had a good return on target after every shot. I am a bit high on all, due to zeroing at 50/200. Maybe a bit too high, going to look into that.

4) Ok gents, this is probably my last range report on the HK416 as an active duty soldier. Not being an officer, our current personnel regulations only allow me to serve until I turn 35.

Anyways, I went out this Saturday to do some shooting. I had a few goals defined:

-Zero my rifle @ 100 meters
-Shoot my new steel targets
-Do some long range shooting at steel
-Shoot a few close range drills
-Shoot a few moving drills

The zeroing was pretty quick and easy, especially when using the laser to place the zeroing target at exactly 100 meters. The issues I was having in a previous post, with my POI being a lot higher than it should, was a result of the regular zero range target stands being closer than 30 meters, leading to hits more consistent With a 300 meter zero.

I unfortunatly did not have time to calculate the trajectory with the new zero, so some of my long distance shooting suffered from me not being familiar with, or knowing, the hold offs.

All my shooting was done without a magnifier.

My steel targets are a 10" circle, and a torso sized steel target. The 10" steel circle was at 111 meters (121 yards) and the steel torso was at 337 meters (368 yards). Distances were measured using a Leica Vector 1500 LRF.

A size reference pic of the steel torso target, I am 5'9":

Here are a few vids (note, on a couple there is some interference from a cell phone):

Bill Drill:

Bill Drill POV:

El Prez run 1:

El prez run 1 POV:

El prez run 2:

El prez run 2 POV:

I fumbled the mag change on this run, didn't really get into a good platform, and had two misses (outside the 9 ring).

"Zig Zag" drill run 1:

"Zig Zag" drill run 1 POV:

"Zig Zag" drill run 2:

"Zig Zag" drill run 2 POV:

"Zig Zag" drill run 2 Targets:

10" steel target pack supported:

10" steel target magazine supported, target view:

10" steel target magazine supported POV:

Steel Torso 337 meters pack support:

Steel Torso 337 meters magazine support:

I had 33 or 34 hits out of 60 rounds fired.

Steel Torso 337 meters magazine support POV:

В конце идет небольшая дисскусия о том, что хотят ввести пристрелку оружия на 300 метров, вместо обычных 100, солдат говорит и доказывает с помощью графиков, что это скорее всего глупость.
Вот и все.
Tags: guns, norway, nstg, video

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.