Why do WWII military rifles often shoot high? Pic-related is my Finnish M39. It shoots about 8"-12" high at 100 yards sighted at 150 meters, using 147gr Russian light ball. I know that the ammo is going to shoot a bit high since the rifle was sighted on 200gr bullets (the barrel is marked "D" for the D166-loaded cartridges), but not that high. I've heard similar stories with a lot of other rifles, especially the M39's though, like that soldiers in different armies were taught to aim at the enemy's belt buckle (bellybutton) to hit the center mass.
>>27915146
Soviets were taught to aim for the belt-buckle on a man sized target, so they designed the Mosin-Nagant to shoot high.
>>27915146
Not sure about all WWII guns, but I've heard that the Finns purposely had it shoot high and told their soldiers to aim for the belt.
plus there is probably a significant difference in the ammo
>>27915146
/K/ PLS HALP
>>27915180
Why were they taught this way, though? And why would they design it this way? It just seems strange to me.
>>27915182
Yep, others on /k/ have told me the same thing. The ammo difference might account for a 1-2 MOA difference, but not this much. Any idea why they'd teach them this and design the rifles this way? I find it surprising that Simo Hayha made so many kills at 100-400m when the M28-30 rifle had to be guess-timated.
So basically if your aiming the rifle at the center bullseye of the target it will just go at the very high top no matter the iron sight being seighted directly at the center?
GODDAMNIT FUCKING HELL HOW DO I FUCKING FIX THAT SHIT WITH MY RIFLE SO I CAN GET CENTER SHOT PLACEMENTS WITH REGULAR IRON SIGHTS FUCK!!!!!!!!
>>27915232
I'm not bothered by it at all, the rifle is excellent and it's my favorite gun out of 4 guns I own. Aiming low has never been an issue. I'm just wondering for historical purposes.
>>27915247
But if it is made like that it will just be shitty because what if I am aiming at the head!?
It will just go over fucking hell might as well get a shitty commercial brand rifle since those are made to hit the center with the iron sights aligned.
>>27915273
Chill dude. Rifle is fine. It's perfectly easy to correct your aim for the head, you just move up a few inches from the bellybutton or your general POI. I'm just wondering again for historical purposes why they built rifles like this and taught soldiers to aim this way. Also, most high-caliber bolt-actions aren't built with iron sights. Those that do either don't achieve <1.5MOA accuracy (which these Finn rifles have) or they don't come with iron sights at all, cost much more than a $400 rifle with great history behind it, or they shoot ammo that's much more expensive than 54r that's either new-production of milsurp.
>>27915308
No i want to be able to just aim at the center of the head and pull the trigger and hit the head directly were i was aiming at
I don't want the rifle to shoot the round and have it go over the fucking moon when you were aiming it at the head GODDAMNIT FUCKING SHIT FUCK!
>>27915354
Jesus fucking Christ, this rifle was fine for some Finnish soldier throughout the entire Continuation War seeing how it was made in 1941. But it's not fine for you? Go away. You're too mad.
The rationale isn't present to me so like you I'm just wondering why the fuck they designed the rifles like these.
>>27915354
>>27915146
ladder sights are battle zero at 100-200yd
traditional AK and PAP sights go battle zero (200yd), 0, 100, 200, 300, etc
u sperg
>>27915372
But i want a fucking rifle that i can hit someone in the head without having to do some drunk shit math calculating bullshit FUCK i want a rifle that is built to last and it is not fucked up to were you have to aim someone at the fucking leg just to hit them at the head fucking shithead fucking moron fuck!
IS THERE ANY SURPLUS RIFLE THAT I CAN USE TO HIT SOMETHING IN THE HEAD WITH ACCURATE SHOTS WITHOUT THE SHIT TO AIM IT AT THE CHEST TO DO THAT!?
GODDAMNIT I'm losing my mind here and your really starting to piss me OFF!
>>27915379
The guy sperg'ing isn't me. I'm the OP, who's been telling him the rifle is fine.
Also, ladder sights on M39 are configured at 150 meters, not 100-200yds.
Anyways, I found this, and it makes plenty of sense:
http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/2014/why-did-civil-war-officers-tell-their-men-to-aim-low
>For a very long time, people had been taught to shoot low for reasons of recoil mitigation. Muskets and most single-shot weapons before modern military firearms of the time had a lot more recoil and thus a lot of muzzle climb that could be reasonably mitigated by shooting low.
It seems like training doctrine had always called for soldiers to aim low, so they made the rifle shoot low to adjust to common habits and training doctrines. Sounds retarded, but keep in mind that most calibers fired by weapons up to this point were Xbox huge compared to 54r. Shotguns were also fairly-common and required lower aiming. So instead of re-teaching Finnish men how to shoot (which Finnish culture instilled in them since the 1920s up to the Winter War) the people making the M39 decided to just design the rifle properly for its anticipated user.
>>27915443
Maybe you could stop being a shitty shot
>>27915455
Or maybe I should just kick your fucking ass and break your goddamn teeths out!
How M39 shoot depends on your front sight height. They're numbered, so adjust to what you want to shoot at regular. IIRC, they are typically zeroed at 150 meters with 200grn bullets.
I believe mine had the lowest front sight height possible.
What the hell is it with psychopaths late at night?
>>27915471
Yeah, sighted for 150 yards it'll certainly shoot a half inch high at 100yds or so assuming it's sighted properly. It does make sense that most Finns were taught to shoot very low, and that most Finns were generally taught to shoot this way for a long time, so they designed the rifle in a way that it'd shoot well in even when it didn't have much of the recoil that they were taught to compensate for by aiming low. Mine shoots about a foot high.
>>27915477
No idea m8. This random fucking sperg just joined my thread and derailed it.
>>27915509
So basically THE ONLY FUCKING WAY I CAN GET A DECENT KILL AT A DEER IS BY SHOOTING THE GROUND UNDERNEATH IT?
God fucking Lucifer damn fucking baby jesus whore I CAN'T STAND THAT SHIT!
I don't want to have a rifle that i have to aim at the feet just to maybe not miss by half a mile over the head.
Fuck This SHIT I MIGHT AS WELL GO FUCKING BUY ONE THAT ISN'T JUNK LIKE YOUR BREAIN THAT I WANT TO CRACK OPEN AND DUMP OUT THE JUNK YOU FILLED UP INSIDE YOUR HEAD YOU STUPID FUCK!
Couple of reasons I can think of. One is that you're using a much lighter bullet with a different powder charge than the sights are calibrated for, so the bullet's trajectory will not intersect with the line of sight at the appropriate range marked on the sight. Also, the rifle's stock may have shrunk slightly or is otherwise bearing on the barrel of the rifle in a way it did not originally.
>>27915543
Someone screen cap this and send it to the Autism Foundation
>>27915552
I figured it out. Weird explanation but makes sense.
>>27915444
Thanks for contributing though either way.
>>27915556
No fuck you
I'm fucking angry to find out about how shot the Finland rifles are AND I OWN THREE FUCKING THREE GODDAMNIT
I'm just gonna go seel all of my firearms and go buy ones that AREN'T SHIT!
>>27915564
Shit*
>>27915468
What, did you overdose on your sperg meds? Sort your raging retard issues out and maybe you won't be made so much fun of.
>>27915564
Sell*
So if all this stuff is true, why didn't soldiers in WW2 just wear their belts on their heads?
>>27915564
Awwww, somebody it trying to make it seem like antman is alive.
4/10 you had some people going.
>>27915209
>Why were they taught this way, though? And why would they design it this way? It just seems strange to me.
Because over time the most likely thing to happen to a mass-produced gun barrel being used and not well maintained over many years is that it is going to droop.
That way even if it shoots a little high, it will be okay.
>>27915354
>No i want to be able to just aim at the center of the head
good luck doing that past 50m with irons. if you dont have enough brains to Kentucky Windage 8-12", then you sure as fuck aint gonna hit shit past 100m
>>27915623
That's also a good point, I don't think that's what they had in mind but it's a great design feature considering how much the Finns shot these things. Mine's got a wartime stock and has a counterbore, but is in excellent condition inside (great rifling, smooth, overall excellent+). So chances are that mine got shot a lot, or at least cleaned a bunch.
>>27915608
The Patton of our generation.
>>27915649
I hope you don't think this guy is me, the OP.
>>27915232
Find a way to make the front sight taller
Well, most battle rifles from that era were sighted in approximately at 150-300 yards. They also used specific ammo, with relatively comparable ballistic coefficients; that you do not have.
If your rifle was sighted in at 300yards with a 200g round, shooting a 174g at 100yards is surely going to throw your round high.
>>27915443 Learn to compensate. Or, just make your front sight post taller. Better yet, you sound fucking crazy, and I'm kind of glad you aren't able to aim your weapon. Your next shot should be a bullseye though. Right in your fucking head.
Faggot.
>>27915146
>>27915180
>>27915182
>>27915232
>>27915247
>>27915354
>>27915372
>>27915543
I was always told that it's because a bayonet's weight would ever so slightly change the shape of the barrel and correct the shot.
Could be a myth though.
>>27915687
I'm OP, that guy is a sperg. Pls disregard him. I actually enjoy aiming low, it makes me understand the history that the rifle has better.
>>27915613
What happened to him anyway?
>>27915724
Jesus Christ, the guy sperging out in this thread isn't OP. I'm OP. I made all of the posts actually commenting on the rifle's history that weren't angry. Nobody reads the thread, everybody spergs out, and I get sad.
>>27915726
Most Finns didn't use their bayonets, and I think that the bayonet was built for the rifle rather than the rifle being built to accomodate a bayonet. The bayonet was just a Finnish Tuka knife, there were only 10,000 made for <130,000 M39 rifles.
>>27915760
He died from a tumor
>>27915809
Shit
Well at least he is not in pain no more
I actually feel sorry for the guy now
Except for the asshole going nuts in this thread
OP here, I'm not the guy sperging out in the thread, I've been having the discussion completely separate from him. Could you guys stop accusing me of being him? If you read the string of replies it'd be perfectly obvious. Pic-related is my M39 on display at The Mosin Crate.
>>27915846
We weren't jumping at you op
We knew who was who but yeah i can understand why you felt that way
>>27915859
Thanks m8
Any tips on eliminating copper fouling from the receiver, btw? Just a spot of it in the rim surrounding the chamber and on the base of the receiver near where the bullet rubs before going into the chamber.
sorry sperglord bro but part of being a havegun is being one with your gun and being able to know where to adjust your aim to hit your intended target. If you can't go out and shoot and become good at hitting headshots or whatever dumb bait shit you made me reply to then you shouldnt havegun
From what I recall the order to shoot at a position lower than the center mass dates back up to a specific command issued by Napoleon to his unbloodied troops: "Aim for the legs."
He realized that prior to experiencing the horror of combat the tendency for normal soldiers is to pull away the gun upward at the last second. The aversion to kill is deeply rooted in the unconscious and no normal man wants to shoot another, so by aiming low at the last moment as the novice soldier pulls away the muzzle aligns to the correct spot.
>>27915809
> people actually believe this
Thai thread was sketchy as fuck
>>27915965
I think the recoil theory is more logical, though. That's an objective thing, whereas the whole "pulling the muzzle up due to fear of hurting someone" logic is plausible and true in a lot of cases but not enough to warrant a redesign of a rifle's sights.
>>27915726
entirely incorrect.
>>27915146
Get a taller M39 front sight. They're not hard to find on ebay or with some google magic.
>>27915146
Okay OP here's the answer you're looking for.
First off, your thinking is incorrect. Heavier ammunition shoots HIGHER than lighter ammunition.
Second off, you can get taller M39 front sights on ebay or some collector sites like Libertytree, numrich, and a couple other smaller specialty parts dealers. Depends on their stock. Look around though, they're out there.
-AVID collector of Finnish Rifles.
>>27915892
You can use electrolyte cleaning
Basically you have the wires wrapped at on end of the rifle and the other at the back end and you run a battery charge through it and you plug the back of the barrel up so no liquid can escape and you fill the barrel with i think either oil or water and you insert a metal rod down inside it.
Thatbor just get boiling water and poor it down the barrel and then quickly run oil through the barrel and use bore snake to fully clean it.
Honestly I don't know
>>27915146
because holy shit we're at war we have to deliver 500,000 of these things last week fuck fuck fuck slap shit together and get it out the door or our boys will have to fight Gerry with just their cocks and balls.
>>27915146
because the bayonet pulls the point of impact down when on.
>>27916012
>Heavier ammunition shoots HIGHER than lighter ammunition
Yeah, I figured out why this is an issue.
>You can get taller M39 front sights...
No thanks, it seems like a good idea but I really like the fact that I get to shoot the rifle the same way the Finn who carried it before did.
>>27916038
Wrong
>>27916031
Wrong
>>27916028
Thanks. I think that's a bit much, though. Will probably just leave it as it is and let more shooting warm it up so I can clean it.
>>27916038
Absolutely untrue. Finns rarely mounted bayonets and their rifles were zeroed without them on.
>>27916039
If you're not willing to do what it takes to fix the problem then why are you bothering to ask? The Finn who shot it before you didn't give two shits about what front sight was on his rifle, so long as it killed Ivan, and neither should you.
>>27915308
It would be great to have a rifle that you could actually properly zero, and not always have to correct your aim.
Although that's where brands like Ruger and Remington and Tikka come in. 100m zero will always fire straight at what you're aiming at, provided you don't jerk the fucking trigger.
>>27916063
>>27916048
M44 and Type 53s were zeroed at the factory with their bayonets forward.
>>27916063
addendum. This is why Finnish bayonets are so rare and often worth more than the rifles they were mounted on, ESPECIALLY M39 bayonets.
>>27915892
Don't sweat it, the copper deposits don't affect function/accuracy.
If it really bothers you then you can use a non-corrosive copper solvent on a patch and rub the area with the patch.
>>27916091
We're talking about Finnish rifles. So this has no bearing on the conversation. Thanks for playing though.
>>27916028
This is a super shitty idea and the only reason why you'd ever do this is to remove bluing/rust.
>>27915543
Y...you sound like antman
>>27916063
Holy fucking shit, why is everyone so hostile tonight? I said numerous times in the thread that I have no problem at all with it shooting high, but I was curious about the context of the design choice. I'm getting very impatient with people making shit I said up.
>>27916076
Eh, the M39 is properly-zeroed, but you have to find the POI yourself. After that it's a tack driver that shoots cheap milsurp ammo.
>>27916094
Yeah, that makes sense. I'm probably going to keep it as-is. Thanks mate.
In general, why are there so many hostile or pissy people here tonight? I started this thread asking about possibilities for why the designers of the M39 designed it to shoot high, I said numerous times that I LIKE it that way, and then a sperg comes onto here and flips his shit to the point where people just shitpost. To the people who haven't even read the thread and who are just getting pissy and arguing anyways, fuck off, I already know the answers to what I wanted to know. Thanks to the folks who actually contributed to the thread and answered questions, or who at least tried to without being cocks about it.
>>27916123
Speaking of antman.
Theres another psycho tonight.
/k/ is full of surprises tonight hahaha.
>>27914194
>>27916303
Jesus christ I'm gonna take a break from tonight
/k/ is on its period right now
Sounds like you need a taller sight post like what others are saying.
As for military rifles hitting high, it's called a battle sight zero or BZO. You zero your default setting to 200 or 300 meters, that way you don't have to compensate for drop during an engagement. If you're close to the enemy, you aim for their belly (that's where the belt buckle thing came from) because your bullet will hit high into their chest. Otherwise you just aim at the center of visible mass. There isn't more than 6" difference in POI for most BZO so at regular combat distances you'll probably still have a hit and not send it high as the sperg is being a faggot about.
If the shot was longer than that then you flipped up your ladder sight. The same concepts are used today. That's why the A2 sight on the M16 is the way it is.
>>27916840
At 100 yards, though, the 150 meter sight shoots really high. This isn't an issue, as I've said in the thread. The Finns were taught to shoot this way and frankly I'm not interested in modifying this rifle when the historical value can remain present if I just learn to shoot well with it
