Is the #M1A #SOCOM16 the California proof home defense system? In Part 1, we'll zero the SOCOM 16 iron sights using the battlesight zero method and see.
I was focused on even more basic stuff than that since I was in a prone supported position. I struggled to gain and maintain consistent cheek weld, nose on firing thumb as it wraps over the stock. I struggled with front sight/target focus with my poor vision and tri-focal glasses. Also, maintaining the butt stock in my shoulder pocket without it slipping out was a problem. Once I figure out how my body best fits the platform, I'll tackle sling firing. Great question, though!
@@TheTSFChannel the sling would correct that. I'm 60 years old. I understand all you're vision problems. I use my sling still exactly how i was trained 40 years ago in the Marines. And amaze many out on the firing range how well a mini 14 can shoot. 😆 . ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-kLk5xVEa2ek.html
@@TheTSFChannelDo they have some type of peep sight optical lenses for these,and would that help? Seems like I have seen them some where. Off to search giigle,cringe,hooya and other sources.11.23.2024 Thx for good vid
@@rontate7719 If I ever get out to do the second video in the series, I'll demonstrate what I did to mine with a #PrimaryArms 1x8 LVPO with ACSS reticle. I have poor eyesight and am ineffective with irons at distance, so I need optics to make .308 work for me. Be sure you're subscribed and hit the notification bell so you'll know when the video drops.
Great video. I need to watch the elevation portion a time or two more to make sure I’m certain I understand correctly. Really appreciate you putting this together and looking forward to part 2!
@@TheTSFChannel ….jewtube doesn’t like gun instructional videos. I imagine they get hidden in the back of their library. I have been looking for a video like the one you put out for at least 6 months.
I have never understood why you would aim at any point other than where you want the bullet to strike. When I went to qualify with the M-14, we were taught the 6 o'clock hold position. I always thought that was nonsense, held where I wanted the bullet to strike and adjusted my sights accordingly. Never had an issue. Of course I didn't tell the rifle coach. I just did it and never had an issue.
You were doing the same thing, essentially, tweaking your sites at each step, but individual civilians don't have the luxury of confirming zeroes on KD (known distance) ranges with full unit support and dudes in the pit at 250 meters. So they came up with these field expedient target's with the ballistics math built in. At 25 yds, your bullet with this load should be spinning this much, which will cause it to rise this much and hit a paper target, here, this high above your aiming point. And they determined through math and hands-on trial and error that your results at 25 yds will hit bullseye at 100 yds, and that with that battlesight zero, a rifleman should be able to take the hill, scoring target hits from 0 - 400 yds without further sight adjustment. Ain't war hell?
The theory I want to validate or debunk is to have a red dot for CQB, 50 yds or closer, but mainly for emergency engagements, when you don't have time to adjust a LPVO. That being said, once zeroed to the same battlesight specs, the red dot should also be good out to 400 yds. Irons and red dots are straight line distance. It's the ballistics that should ensure a target hit.
Christ I hope your OK....? Been like 7 months on this video with the SOCOM16 with a promise of a "part 2" and no other videos of any other kind done since.....
