Longest range recorded kill

Well I just went back through the thread searching for the word tank. The first appearance is where another member links the tank kill thread. After that the next one to bring up tank optics is you indeed most of the additional mentions of them seem to be from those wondering why you brought them up. Thus your allegation is somewhat suspect here as well.

 

I can recommend a number of books, but most of what I know is trough the collectors community I'm in; I called it a club before, it has no name though. There's a few camera collectors in it as-well. Amongst the books I can recommend there is Peter Senich's works on German snipers stretching from WW1 to WW2.

Here's a useful link as-well: Zeiss

"Another noteworthy milestone was on November 1, 1935 when by then a staff member at Zeiss (Alexander Smakula) developed and then patented anti- reflective (T Transparenz) coatings thereby improving light transmission dramatically over uncoated lenses in binoculars to over 80 per cent, and finding other applications for the advances of optics in many other fields. The AR coatings remained a military secret until about 1940."

After 1940 anti-reflective coatings were applied to lenses meant for the civil market as-well, other companies, such as Leica, who initially only had been permitted coating lenses meant for military equipment, were then permitted coating lenses meant for the civil market as-well, using Zeiss's patented method, paying license to Zeiss in the process. Anti-reflective coatings weren't applied to lenses made outside of Germany until after WW2 however.

 

Everyone that own's a digital camera know's a lens will get dust on it,a smudge on it,or damaged....
Here is a view through my brand new Leupold that has excellent optics
However see what my $60 used Sony Cybershot camera did to this (picked up ocular shadow making it appear to have edge distortion - caused blur etc...)


Another example of what this camera will do when not even looking through a scope



Proeliator may we see photo's of your rifle's please? im rather interested

Thanks.

Indeed it is more important to here from an actual sniper veteran who used these scope's

In the interview I posted earlier she is asked "
A.D. Did you use binoculars?
No, only the optical sight.
A.D. But the sight doesn't have a good field of view?
You could see 800 meters very well"

V.Zaitsev in his memoirs talking on the PEM scope "I have a passion looking through excellent optics - A German soldier 500 yards away who was once just a small figure,now through my sight I can see his features - rather he has shaved that day or not,Even at this distance I can put my crosshair right over his head,I fire and drops" His book "Notes of a Russian sniper" is a good reference.

The photo I posted of my friends PU scope view is simply what to expect from your standard PU scope that has not been abused,same clarity all mine have
Vintovka

 

What's the same experience?

As far as the scope....that's a self answering question.

 

That the optics weren't great, but not horrible either, I have as mentioned seen quite a few of these scopes.

How so, there's more than just one type of Unertl scope out there.

 

But not so much on the Marine snipers. The only other scope that i know from WW2 and a little earlier was the Warner Swazey Scope with its problem of the often foggy lenses.

 

That shot is completely blurry all the way Vintovka, even the crosshairs are blurry - unlike on the pictures of your PU scopes. If the crosshairs are clear but the image beyond is cloudy, and there is distortion at the edges, then the camera isn't the problem, and that's the case in the pictures of your PU scopes.

The shot of your Leupold scope is unfocused, but it is clear that the scope features no distortion, there is no sign of it what'so'ever.

Take a focused shot through your Leupold as you did with your PU, that should show the difference

 

Really? I would have thought it might be because the camera was focused on the corss hairs and not the image beyond.

 

I used the same exact settings I did on my PU scope's - macro-auto focused,nothing more I can do. Camera's fault,blur is from sunlight which the camera picks up to high when looking through glass. Until I can get an HD camera this is the best I can do. next paycheck I will get myself an HD camera and have HD shots through my PU scopes posted.

Vintovka

 

That may be as well,in fact that's probably the problem,macro setting picks up only the closest objects causing the crosshairs to be clear and the background blurred.

 

Remember cloudy is not the same as blurry. In Vintovka's shots of his PU's both the crosshairs and the image beyond were in focus, as they should be, yet you could still notice cloudiness, image distortion & discolouration. So the camera did its' job. In his shot of the Leupold however the whole picture is out of focus and one big blur, and thus no comparison can be drawn.

 

Problem is that the pictures tell another story, with either the whole image being blurry or the crosshairs + background being in focus.

 

Unertl made a scope just for the USMC. For years it wasn't available for purchase to anyone else outside the government, that changed less than a decade ago. Heres a description of it.

"The USMC Scope has a wire MilDot Reticle. The reticle is made by Premiere Reticle Co. Frankly the best in the industry and the original maker for the USMC scopes. It is a fixed ten power, one inch steel main tube, 36mm objective and 32mm ocular lens. The BDC is unique in that it not only allows for the standard range adjustment, it also allows for fine changes to be made without disturbing the range settings. A sniper can quickly dial for any range to one thousand yards, in one hundred-yard increment, and then make fine adjustments of several minutes up, down, right or left. Since the path of a bullet is changed by atmospheric conditions, most BDCs are designed for quick, rough estimations and use an average ballistic trajectory curve for the round. The BDC of the USMC scope allows a sniper to have pinpoint precision under all conditions with the quickness of a BDC. This is truly the best of both worlds."

Interestingly, the USMC has avoided using variable power scopes in it's sniper rifles for decades because the rough handling necessitated by combat operations cause variable power scopes to be less reliable. (The original M40 from the late '60's had a 3X9 variable power Redfield scope, it was deemed unsatisfactory for the new handbuilt M40a1's of the early '70's when the purpose built fixed power Unertl scope was adopted).

It is only recently that the Marine Corps replaced the Unertl and has gone back to a variable power scope with later M40a3's and the new a5.
"Military organizations also are a main driving force behind the development of ever more versatile mil-dot reticles, like the Generation II mil-dot reticle from Premier Reticles the US Marine Corps specified for their 7000 USMC M8541 Premier/Schmidt & Bender 3-12x50 PM II LP telescopic sights."

 

Interestingly I just noticed that Scott Powers, the person who's small article m kenny earlier linked us to, also made a similar test with a single ZF-4.

His observations on this example are quite interesting, esp. when you note, as I mentioned earlier, that the ZF4 was the least well made German scope made during the war:

"Optically this particular ZF-4 is fairly clear. The lenses appear to be coated which would not surprise me considering who made the scope. The glass has a slight tint to it and importantly, the scope is charged with nitrogen for anti-fogging in inclement weather. The body of the ZF-4 was always marked with a stamped triangle. This was filled with colored paint to indicate what climate the particular sight was capable of operating in. The particular scope, made by Opticotechnica (dow), was stamped with a blue triangle, indicating severe weather. Tested against the Zeiss Test Pattern, the scope resolved down to number 5 on the scale. I could almost resolve the 6.5 block. This seems fairly good and beats the PU handily. The image appeared crisp to the edge of the glass with only a hint of compression on one side right at the very edge. Interestingly, the image stayed crisp everywhere else. I did not notice any discernable distortion."

 

I see different honestly,As I have said my personal PU/PE/PEM scopes have excellent clarity to me,I own a number of different scope's - most modern hunting models,I see nothing wrong with my WWII Russian scope's,Clear view-nice field of view,good adjustments/accurate,my Camera cant pick up the clarity of my Russian scope's as I see them in real time,as my friends camera has done,showing the excellent clarity of a good condition PU scope,instead of one that's been battle abused. Thing is most original PU scope's people pick up are some serious combat veterans and will have optical problems,I myself have handpicked all my Sniper rifle's/scope's when purchasing and the soldier that carried them took good care of them. (I also dont think me and proeliator are arguing/having a heated discussion,the problem with the internet is it may seem that way but if we were having this discussion in real life we would be 2 WWII weapons enthusiasts simply discussing our opinions on a subject were both interested in)
.

Vintovka

 

When using a complex system of optics it's pretty hard to tell where distortions, artifacts, cloudiness, etc come from. If the picture is perfect than you know all the optics are close to perfect but if it's not it can be one or another or a combination or even the interface. If both the crosshairs and the background appear to be in focus then neither is probably in perfect focus. When you add automatic camer settings to the mix it gets even more complicated as the camera can react differently due to illumination variances. Without a comparison shot at very close to the same time with the same camera settings and pointed at the same targets using photos for comparison purposes is problematic. However it looks to me like the photos do indicate that the Soviet scopes were quite serviceable.

 

I think Proeliator we need to narrow the parameters of the discussion. We are not discussing who made the best sight, nor the best sniper rifle, nor the best tank sight or the best round. These are just ancillary arguments. What most of us are stating is that the skill of the shooter is the most important factor in long range shooting. To define long range I would state anything 500 yards or greater, up to 800 yards. If anyone would like to change this definition please so state and we will go with whatever parameter you wish. I think the discussion should be reserved, primarily, to the .30 caliber round (.30-06, 7.92, 7.62 x 51, .308, .303). Very long range I would define as 800-1000 yards. This is because, IMO, 800yds is about the longest range a well trained marksman can reliably hit a man sized target with iron sights. 1000yds is about the longest range that exceptional shooters can do the same. 1100 yards to 1500 yards, extreme long range. Anything out past 1500 yards is probably a fairytale or a fluke for a .30 caliber round.

A bit late, but I agree - Slipdigit 15 Jan 2011.

 

Exactly. The main debate is over the Soviet wartime scopes and how good they are.
It has broadened out to include a poitless comparison to German scopes simply because someone can resist claiming Soviet made equipment is always inferior to German equipment.
The point had been made over and over again. The Soviet scopes were rugged and they stand out as extremely functional and effective. They worked.

 

This Vic Thomas?

Rifles Of The Red Star

I can not understand why you insinuate that 'serious collectors' would like to have words with him because he posts openly on a number of gun forums. He is available for all and perhaps a link from you to show how 'serious collectors' dispute his expertise might help.

Have you got such a link?
Can you name a 'serious collector' who has any issues?

 

I will second that m kenny - They worked,It appears the argument over which side had clear scope's will last forever,So I guess im stepping out of this one )

Take care guys