How do scopes/aims on guns work?

[Cheezeit]

Since the scope is always a little above the barrel, won't your shot always be a little lower than you aimed it at? Won't snipers always have to aim a little up, especially when trying to get a headshot?

Is there some mechanism in the gun to make it exact or do the shooters just have to calculate and compensate?

Just curious and uninformed

 

[Sheepathon]

calibration ftw

 

[SVT Cobra]

you always test and recalibrate a gun on a range at a known exact range when putting on a new scope or barrel

 

[oogabooga]

Originally posted by: Sheepathon
calibration ftw

calibartion and training / skill.

 

[mugs]

It's adjusted so that at some specific distance away from the barrel the path of the bullet will cross the straight line from your eye through the scope.

Simpler version: the scope points down a bit.

 

[Cheezeit]

So it would be different everytime for a different range? DO you guys mean the scope and barrel form sort of an "X" at the target?

 

[Cheezeit]

Originally posted by: mugs
It's adjusted so that at some specific distance away from the barrel the path of the bullet will cross the straight line from your eye through the scope.

Simpler version: the scope points down a bit.

ah I see. Thats just what i just posted asking.

Thanks guys

 

[TheNinja]

Originally posted by: Cheezeit
So it would be different everytime for a different range? DO you guys mean the scope and barrel form sort of an "X" at the target?

Well every distance/range would be aimed slighty different yes. To take into account a) the score and the barrel would for an X and mostly b) a bullet does not travel a straight line like a laser...it is more of an arc.

 

[mooncancook]

The scope may be parallel to the barrel, but the reticle makes an angle with the barrel, and the angle is adjustable, and need to be adjustable depending on the distance of the target for an accurate aim.

[edit] I used to have the same question too, then I learned it from my replica AUG BB assault rifle[/edit]

 

[mercanucaribe]

It doesn't make sense to have the line of the bullet and the line of the scope to cross, because then the difference changes with range.. Why not just have them exactly parallel and let the shooter compensate by aiming 2" higher than he would otherwise?

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
It doesn't make sense to have the line of the bullet and the line of the scope to cross, because then the difference changes with range.. Why not just have them exactly parallel and let the shooter compensate by aiming 2" higher than he would otherwise?

Because bullets drop.

 

[Cheezeit]

you guys know a ton

 

Magic, usually.

 

[Cheezeit]

Originally posted by: SampSon
Magic, usually.

ah, I see

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
It doesn't make sense to have the line of the bullet and the line of the scope to cross, because then the difference changes with range.. Why not just have them exactly parallel and let the shooter compensate by aiming 2" higher than he would otherwise?

Because bullets drop.

And? The arc of the bullet and the line of the sight still only cross at one point (maybe two). Why make the sniper compensate for the bullet's arc AND the different angles when he can instead compensate for the arc and then add a couple inches for the scope's offset?

 

[SVT Cobra]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
It doesn't make sense to have the line of the bullet and the line of the scope to cross, because then the difference changes with range.. Why not just have them exactly parallel and let the shooter compensate by aiming 2" higher than he would otherwise?

Because bullets drop.

And? The arc of the bullet and the line of the sight still only cross at one point (maybe two). Why make the sniper compensate for the bullet's arc AND the different angles when he can instead compensate for the arc and then add a couple inches for the scope's offset?

because the scope itsself can be dialed and adjusted for distances n00b...so once its lned up making an X all the sniper has to do is worry about wind and things not his scope...

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
It doesn't make sense to have the line of the bullet and the line of the scope to cross, because then the difference changes with range.. Why not just have them exactly parallel and let the shooter compensate by aiming 2" higher than he would otherwise?

Well for one, if you're shooting a small target at along range and accuracy is important (i.e. competition), eyeballing a 2" difference isn't going to cut it.

That and I think snipers can adjust their scopes pretty accurately on the fly.

 

[skyking]

Originally posted by: Son of a N00b

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
It doesn't make sense to have the line of the bullet and the line of the scope to cross, because then the difference changes with range.. Why not just have them exactly parallel and let the shooter compensate by aiming 2" higher than he would otherwise?

Because bullets drop.

And? The arc of the bullet and the line of the sight still only cross at one point (maybe two). Why make the sniper compensate for the bullet's arc AND the different angles when he can instead compensate for the arc and then add a couple inches for the scope's offset?

because the scope itsself can be dialed and adjusted for distances n00b...so once its lned up making an X all the sniper has to do is worry about wind and things not his scope...

Also, he can even make wind corrections on the scope.