How easily should you hit a moving target?

[VipersGhost]

It's my understanding that when you say a rifle shoots X MOA groups, X measures the total arc size, not the radius.

Hey your totally right, good call on that one. I read an article saying to imagine MOA as a triange. The sited location being one point and two shots being the other. MOA would be the distance between the two shot points.

[nedlands1]

Hey your totally right, good call on that one. I read an article saying to imagine MOA as a triange. The sited location being one point and two shots being the other. MOA would be the distance between the two shot points.

Yeah, I made a little diagram to further illustrate the concept.



A: Firing position
B: Edge of circle encompassing the three strikes
C: Opposite edge of circle encompassing the three strikes
D: Target position
θ: Angle of triangle

So we have |AD| as the distance to the target (namely in metres or feet), θ as the width of the group (namely in MOA) and |BC| as the width of the group at (namely in centimetres or inches).

[Gore]

25%

[SocketMan]

voted 75%
However I find (atm) that hitting running target with
the "standard" m16 is easier that with other weapons.
That's coming from a tank whore who plays on
"the axis" side on the prt (read don't use the m16 that often)

[DimensioN]

I said 75% for reasons stated above

[Garmax]

assuming your a good shot it should be 75%

amazing shot you maybe not a 100 but pretty close..

crappy shot.. your lucky to land a few bullets..

but it shouldnt be that hard to hit a moving target

[Duende]

if you assume that the target has a linear traject... you could hit him 90% of the times...

if teh conditions do not include this, i´ll keep with the 75%.


=P

[WildBill1337]

do you have to lead the target or just aim right on him?

you have to lead your target while they are moving. it just takes practice to master the bullet speed.

[icehollow]

I voted 25% for realism issues ingame. As PR currently is, fire and movement tactics are ALOT more useful then they used to be thanks to new supression effects and deviation. This would be ruined with a higher hit percentage on moving targets.

[Terror_Terror_Terror]

"my pixel is on his head, I should always hit" to "my pixel is moving, so I might miss".

Surely if you aim straight at a moving target the target will not be there when your bullet arrives?

Should you not have to stagger your fire?

I say a good shot should be able to hit 99% of the time.

[OkitaMakoto]

Just said 50% cuz I think its a bit hard to really get specific number for something that relies on a lot 50% maybe a bit more... meh. How fast its moving, direction, etc etc.

[Scot]

Holy necro Okita!! I said 75%

[OkitaMakoto]

Holy necro Okita!! I said 75%

It wasnt a necro Any time someone votes the thread gets bumped, so I saw it when it was bumped, realized I hadnt voted, and voted

[fake123fake]

I was able to hit 46/50 moving targets with an M16A4. Targets were 75m-300m and moved at various speeds ranging from jogging to sprinting.

After running a mile in in my IBA, ACH, and equipment with rifle (to simulate combat fatigue) I still hit 39/50.

[tehb2]

Well, i put 50% actual hits. This of course is depending on if one has the skill to hit a moving target from that distance. If a new comer to PR tries to hit such a target, less chance. But for the experienced, it should be much easier. In the end, the target probably shouldn't live to see the other side of the road, or at least not for long. But, having made these shots a lot myself, I know that even a well aimed shot doesn't mean the bullet will always hit.

Scopes help, but with practice iron sights shouldn't be too big of a deal if the target is in an open enough space for you to reset your aim after each shot. Gotta love those crazy hail-mary first-shot headshots from 200+ meters on moving targets though.

[PFunk]

If its % to hit at all I'd think any real soldier would be able to hit a moving target at 100m with at least one of the 30 rounds in his M16. If we're talking about per bullet % then I wouldn't know. Probably somewhere in the 30 to 50% range.

[Cyber-Couch]

100m away and he's running perpendicular, you can pretty much aim at the target and it will hit him so 100%. In any case the bullet would reach his body in about 1/10th of a second, and he would need to be running inhumanly fast for there to be any lead involved.

[Sadist_Cain]

I was able to hit 46/50 moving targets with an M16A4. Targets were 75m-300m and moved at various speeds ranging from jogging to sprinting.

After running a mile in in my IBA, ACH, and equipment with rifle (to simulate combat fatigue) I still hit 39/50.

Was that with or without your instructor shooting at you?

Can't simulate these kinda things...

[fake123fake]

Was that with or without your instructor shooting at you?

Can't simulate these kinda things...

True, but if there was just some guy running away I know I would be able to hit him pretty good

[Warpig-]

75% simply because that's the closest option to almost always. It wouldn't be 100% but 3 out of 4 seems pretty solid to me