On binary thinking and rear sights

[5MadFarmers]

So the bottom line is that nobody cared whether or not the infantryman could hit his target?

jn

Given that the drift error on the 1892 and 1896 sights is greater than the elevation error on that combination out past 500 yards, and isn't correctable, I guess the answer is "no."

That does assume that they've discovered time and again that effective infantry fire exceeds 300 meters. Which, from at least 1861 to 1945, wasn't the case.

Take a good look at the standard Brit WW2 rifle rear sight. Then look at the WW1 edition.

Cuba, P.I.. I guess they learned something. Forgotten soon enough but learned again in 1917. Then again in 1942.

War is a heck of a school for reality. All the theory goes out the door immediately. Then the professionals take over again after and the drift returns. The next war again hammers home the lessons of reality. Rinse and repeat.



What do you figure the range is there?

Reality. I doubt they missed their targets.

[jon_norstog]

My own take on this issue is that in the Philippines, troops were firing at enemy targets that might have been as far away as 65 yards; kind of like the ranges we have to deal with hunting elk in the mountains. There were cases otherwise; for instance the 71st NY Vols engaged in a rifle duel with the Spanish at about 300 M after Kettle Hill was taken and when the artillerymen needed cover to move their pieces to a less exposed spot. For those who believ3e the 71st NY was unsoldierly or lacking in military virtue, the companies on the line took 20% casualties in less than 5 minutes in that exchange. But the artillery got off and relocated to the dismay of the Spanish.

jn

[5MadFarmers]

I've detected a pattern of the history of the guns ends in 1903 to most. Sling swivels right? School guns.

School guns? Wee guns for wee kids. The demand, circa 1910, was for short rifles. Grinding down the end of the barrel and remodelling a rifle stock did the trick. Carbines. Think they made new sights? Why bother?

====

Guns are the result if experience. Today it's long range in the desert. That's not the norm.







Shotguns were shipped to the P.I.. Strange how the Ladrones could get close enough for bolo action when all the troops could pick them off at 1,500 yards with a Krag.

[Dick Hosmer]

No, presumably, they considered the barrel length and then issued/sold them with carbine sights, usually the M1901C, as being the most appropriate.

[5MadFarmers]

I'm going to be done with this thread. I will go back to the first post. First part of it in fact:

Perhaps the paragraph that should have been included in the book. Thus the Prussian title.

Page 135 holds the seed. I didn't bother growing it. Might as well.

From the good book, page 135:

"In moving to that loading I wonder if the ordnance officers considered the inverse? Yes, the M-1898 was calibrated for it but all the existing Krags were not."

Bold added. Somehow throwing all the 100,000+ Krags off by moving to the hotter loading is just peachy but any move in the opposite direction is verboten.

Those that have moved past that illogical thinking are why this thread was started. For those that cannot move past it - I cannot help you.

Cheers.