# Effective Range



## danteh (1 Apr 2009)

I have been wondering this for awhile now. The C7A1 has an effective range of 400m does that mean that after 400m the bullet will begin to drop and the wind and gravity will take into place?

Basically if I'm at a target range and I shoot at a target 350m away. If I aim dead on him, will it hit? Likewise, if I'm shooting at a target 500m away, would I need to aim a few inches above him to compensate for bullet drop?


----------



## dangerboy (1 Apr 2009)

You will be taught all this on the BMQ and if you are qualified ask your Sect Comd


----------



## Recon 3690 (2 Apr 2009)

A 62 grain 5.56 mm bullet leave the 20" barrel of a C7 at Approx 3300 feet per second with about 1200 foot pounds of  energy, as it travels down range it looses both velocity & energy. Effective range is the calculated distance that the bullet will still do what it was intended to do, remaining energy is the most important at this time. In theory at 1500 meters the bullet will still punch through a paper target but will only bruise skin on a person because energy is pretty much exhausted at this point. Same bullet from a 16" C8 barrel would probably bounce off the paper at 1500 m. Barrel length has a lot to do with velocity & energy that's why effective range of C7, C8, & C7-CT are all different. With your 5.56 ammo a 26" barrel would give you the optimum ballistics but is tactically impractical. Check out the barrel lengths on the C14 & C15.


----------



## brihard (2 Apr 2009)

'Effective range' simply means that it can be reasonably assumed that a trained soldier can effectively hit a target at that range under normal conditions.

The 5.56mm round will carry on significantly farther than that with the ability to kill, but from the instant the bullet leaves the barrel a massive number of factors begin to impact on the flight of the bullet. Moreover, as the distance to target increases there is a great impact on time- time for the bullet to vary in its path, time for the target to continue any movement that was underway when the bullet fired. Also, at increasingly greater ranges the bullet has less lethal terminal effects on entering a soft target. It's absolutely possible to kill a person with a C7 at 6 or 700m, it's just not likely to happen.

The effective range quoted simply means that the average soldier, proficient with his or her weapon, should be able to put rounds effectively into a man sized target.

Say your C7 is zeroed in for 200m. At that range, assuming a perfect shot, the bullet will strike exactly where you aim. Since your sight is mounted a couple inches above the barrel, the bullet is actually rising in its trajectory for the first two hundred meters. At 100m, for instance, a bullet will strike the target below the point of aim because it has not yet risen to the apex of its trajectory. From there it then starts falling at an increasing rate. Throughout all this, wind resistance is slowing the bullet down, wind across the bullet's path will blow it laterally at an increasing rate, and so on an so forth.

'Effective range' is not a hard and fast rule by any means. It's just an approximation of at what distance a soldier can be expected to employ the rifle in a tactically effective manner. Just because you _can_ hit a dude with a C7 at 400, for instance, doesn't mean that may be your best bet- at that point you're in the envelope for support weapons and indirect fire from any number of sources.


----------



## Fusaki (2 Apr 2009)

> Say your C7 is zeroed in for 200m. At that range, assuming a perfect shot, the bullet will strike exactly where you aim. Since your sight is mounted a couple inches above the barrel, the bullet is actually rising in its trajectory for the first two hundred meters. At 100m, for instance, a bullet will strike the target below the point of aim because it has not yet risen to the apex of its trajectory. From there it then starts falling at an increasing rate. Throughout all this, wind resistance is slowing the bullet down, wind across the bullet's path will blow it laterally at an increasing rate, and so on an so forth.



Not quite.

For a 200M zero your point of impact should be roughly 3" _higher_ than your point of aim (with your C79 set on 200m) from the 100m firing point. The bullet will reach the apex of it's trajectory prior to 200m.

I'm sure someone will come by with the exact numbers...


----------



## Recon 3690 (2 Apr 2009)

For the most part he's right except effective is a calculation of ballistics of the weapon, cartridge, powder, & bullet not the soldier, give me a C7-CT [MRS] and a Leatherwood ART IV & I will hit targets all day at 700 m (but they will only die with perfect shots head or heart) with a C3 or an AR-10T [MRS] 700 m they will die, with a C14 1000 m, with a C15 1500 m +. With a standard C7, C7A1, or C7A2 at 700 m all you are going to do is wound them if you even hit them. Effective Range is a mechanical & physical limitation of the weapon & ammo combination. Or is the effective range of a artillery piece the physical ability of the Bombardier pulling the firing lanyard?


----------



## Michael OLeary (3 Apr 2009)

Wow, anyone else have a bucket-full of irrelevant numbers to toss in the mix?

The one point that has been missed is that the "effective range" of any weapon system has less to so with physical weapon characteristics under ideal conditions, or possible training competencies, than it has to do with tactical planning considerations under (ultimately) unknown or "any" conditions on the battlefield.

The effective range of the service rifle is used for planning tactical engagements and ensuring troops are placed where they can engage appropriate enemy personnel. It doesn't matter if you put together a platoon of sharpshooters, you don't suddenly plan for a different effective range based on employing that group of soldiers, because when your unit gets replaced by another unit in location, they're screwed because you changed the parameters of the planning process.


----------



## Recon 3690 (3 Apr 2009)

danteh said:
			
		

> I have been wondering this for awhile now. The C7A1 has an effective range of 400m does that mean that after 400m the bullet will begin to drop and the wind and gravity will take into place?
> 
> Basically if I'm at a target range and I shoot at a target 350m away. If I aim dead on him, will it hit? Likewise, if I'm shooting at a target 500m away, would I need to aim a few inches above him to compensate for bullet drop?



part of the question was what is meant by 400 m effective range thats what I replied to before getting off track effective range of a C7 is 400 m maximum range is about 2000m (but useless) that the bullet will pysically travel before hitting a zero zero point. Tactical range is usually 200 m thats why you zero your weapon at 200 m. I imagine in Afganistan it is probably 50 m of less.


----------



## ballz (3 Apr 2009)

You zero your rifle at 100m... The Elcan optic that is issued is meant to be zeroed at 100m. It has different markings on it to help judge distance and such, which you can adjust your optic accordingly to, which would be all haywire if you zeroed at 200m.

Also, you don't normally zero a rifle at the top of the bullet's trajectory anyway, or at least I don't. I have a .243 (not much bigger than a 5.56) that I use .243 Win ammo with. My friend who has a huge hard-on for rifles and ammunition helped me determine the cross-trajectory point for 300m which was about 103m. I zeroed 'er in for 103m and now a 103m or 300m shot needs no compensation for elevation, and a 200m shot doesn't need much compensation.

EDIT: I guess I should say that you are "taught" to zero at 100m, obviously each individual soldier that spends a lot of time with his rifle will probably do it whichever way works for him.


----------



## Recon 3690 (3 Apr 2009)

So you know then that due to sectional density & ballistics coeficient that a 6mm or 25 caliber or 243 bullet has the flatest trajectory of any bullet on the market and that your numbers also work for a 6 mm Remington or 25-06. A 243 Winchester is just a necked down 308 Winchester (7.62 x 51 mm NATO) with a better effective range than said 308 and would be a better cartridge for the marksman's rifle then the 7.62.


----------



## Recon 3690 (3 Apr 2009)

With a Leatherwood you insert the proper caliber adjustment cam and zero at the muzzle with a bore sighter. Then when operational you use the onboard range finder dial in the range with the cam and where the the cross hairs are is where the bullet goes out 1200 m.  A Canadian issue Pattern 1914 (Lee Enfield # 3) or a issue M1917 (Lee Enfield # 3) has an effective range of 1000 m with iron sights that made that range feasible when zeroed at 100 m. Thus each piece of equipment you use has its own characteristics and effective, maximum effective, & maximum range is is determined by the weapon, internal ballistics, & external ballistics of its cartridge.


----------



## ballz (3 Apr 2009)

Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> So you know then that due to sectional density & ballistics coeficient that a 6mm or 25 caliber or 243 bullet has the flatest trajectory of any bullet on the market and that your numbers also work for a 6 mm Remington or 25-06. A 243 Winchester is just a necked down 308 Winchester (7.62 x 51 mm NATO) with a better effective range than said 308 and would be a better cartridge for the marksman's rifle then the 7.62.



Well, to answer your question, which could have been more easily worded "Do you know that a .243 has flatter trajectory than .308 and do you know why?" Yes I did know that a .243 is a more accurate rifle and no I did not know why (I certainly won't pretend to be a ballistics expert).

Seems you are somehow offended by my response though since you are gone off on some fit trying to make simple things sound complicated ("6mm or 25 caliber or 243 bullet").

My question for you is wtf does your little "I'm smarter than you" rant have to do with what I said about zeroing the service rifle at 100m? Or what I said about somebody else finding my cross-trajectory point for me so I could zero my own personal rifle at that range?


----------



## Recon 3690 (3 Apr 2009)

I am a trained & fully qualified gunsmith and ballistician. I also never failed to qualify Marksman on the C1A1, C3A1, or Browning high power on yearly quals.

Long distance is the next best thing to being there.

One shot one kill.


----------



## ballz (3 Apr 2009)

And in no way did I doubt your qualifications or credentials, or put my own (very limited) above them..... so the question still stands, wtf is your point?


----------



## Recon 3690 (3 Apr 2009)

I probabily get way to wordy trying to explain things, point is when the pam says effective it is a mechanical function not a human one. The 243 was just trivia for you. I'm not offended like I said I just get to wordy, might be a left over from Jr NCO.


----------



## Fusaki (3 Apr 2009)

> You zero your rifle at 100m... The Elcan optic that is issued is meant to be zeroed at 100m. It has different markings on it to help judge distance and such, which you can adjust your optic accordingly to, which would be all haywire if you zeroed at 200m.
> 
> Also, you don't normally zero a rifle at the top of the bullet's trajectory anyway, or at least I don't. I have a .243 (not much bigger than a 5.56) that I use .243 Win ammo with. My friend who has a huge hard-on for rifles and ammunition helped me determine the cross-trajectory point for 300m which was about 103m. I zeroed 'er in for 103m and now a 103m or 300m shot needs no compensation for elevation, and a 200m shot doesn't need much compensation.



I can see how the terms and wording that you're using here could get confusing.

-The C7 and the C79 scope are normally used with a 200m zero.  This is the army standard, and I don't see why 99% of us would want to use anything different.

-Typically, we get our 200m zero by shooting on a 100m range and adjusting our point of impact slightly higher - about 3" - then our point of aim. Shooting at 100m instead of 200m allows guys to shoot tighter groups for the purpose of calibrating the weapons system, which is really all zeroing is.


----------



## ballz (3 Apr 2009)

Okay, granted, but I just did the better part of a weekend BMQ course in order to prepare for my upcoming BMOQ course in May, and I could swear we were being taught to zero at 100m. My memory is obviously deceiving me, oh well, it's probably because I was thinking "I'll zero this how I damn well please when it really matters" in the back of my head.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Apr 2009)

Go see your instructors and tell them you want a copy of 'Shoot to Live' - B-GL-382-001/PT-001.

In it, you'll find gems like:

C7/C7A1 Service Rifle. The C7/C7A1 Service
Rifle is the principal personal weapon of the
Canadian Forces, and has a maximum effective
range of 400m. Its role is virtually universal as it
can be employed throughout the entire spectrum of
conflict.

ZEROING
96. General. The purpose of zeroing is to “superimpose the
Mean Point of Impact onto the Correct Zero Position” so that the
grouping will form centrally at all ranges, given the appropriate sight
setting and correction for wind. Zeroing is the adjustment of sights
achieved by live firing and the actions of the shooter, the coach and
the Weapons Technician to bring the rifle sights into a position so
that when accurately fired by the soldier for whom it has been
adjusted, the weapon fires bullets to the centre of the target.

and,

Distance. *Zeroing should be carried out on the
100 m range,* which affords accurate reading of
error. Zeroing may be carried out at the 25 m
range if the 100 m is not available. It should be
noted that the shorter the zeroing range, the greater
the inaccuracies at longer ranges. As a general
rule zeroing at 25 m should only be conducted for:
(1) instructors, to ensure reasonable
alignment of sights for preparatory
training of recruits; and
(2) trained soldiers when facilities are not
available.


Just about everything the common dog needs to know about musketry is in this publication. 

Get a copy and read it, all will become clear.

As far as Leatherwood optics is concerned, it's a non starter and a waste of discussion here. Most, if any, will not have an opportunity to use that item during their service, let alone even see one. Unless, of course, you buy your own and put it on your gopher gun.


----------



## geo (3 Apr 2009)

Ballz...
You don't really zero your weapon however the he!! you feel like it.
- Under normal circumstances, you will 1st bore sight your C7 with the Elcan C79 sight...
Then you will zero your weapon on a range - at what should be 200m.

It always matters


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Apr 2009)

:brickwall: :brickwall: :brickwall:


----------



## 1feral1 (3 Apr 2009)

Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> I am a trained & fully qualified gunsmith and ballistician. I also never failed to qualify Marksman on the C1A1, C3A1, or Browning high power on yearly quals.
> 
> Long distance is the next best thing to being there.
> 
> One shot one kill.



Fully trained gunsmith?

By whose standards?

One shot one kill?

Why would you qualify annually on a sniper rifle when you were a 011?

Mate you are dealing with people who are in the know here, including myself.

Again, something is just not right.


Regards from the tropics,

OWDU


----------



## dangerboy (3 Apr 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Go see your instructors and tell them you want a copy of 'Shoot to Live' - B-GL-382-001/PT-001.



The pam has been renamed it is now called "Canadian Forces Operational Shooting Program", they have changed some of the shoots.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Apr 2009)

One shot one kill   ;D

That was the nick name of a fellow I spoke with 3 nights ago. He was in the army doing advanced marksman training after he just finished his freefall halo course. He was from 3PPCLI.
Well that's what he was telling at the people in the bar around him. Turns out, after some questions,  he was 18 and in the process of joining the reserves in my home town. But he played a lot of paintball where he picked up the nick name one shot one kll. iper:


----------



## GAP (3 Apr 2009)

or played Call of Duty 4 - Act II - One Shot, One Kill - Standoff At T

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s28Z-WxW4Y


----------



## Fusaki (3 Apr 2009)

Correction to my last:

The Correct Zero Point (CZP) of a C7 and C79 sight at 100M is exactly 50mm (about 2") above the Point of Aim (POA) in order to achieve a 200m zero. In addition, a C7 Rifle zeroed for 200m will also be zeroed at 54m because this is where the Trajectory intersects the Line of Sight _before_ reaching the Culminating Point.

My previous statement that the CZP should be 3" above your POA was incorrect.

From B-GL-382-001/PT-001 Shoot to live pg 88 - 89.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3617434/canadian-bgl382003pt001-2002


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Apr 2009)

> ....the long range volley sights that were present on SMLE's until their official deletion in 1915/1916. The intent of these sight were to allow British platoons or company's to engage the enemy at a great distance up to 2800-2900 yards. This was not intended to be used as a precise aiming tool. It's effect was to concentrate the fire of a whole platoon or company on a single area, much like machine gun fire does today. Actually, it was the invention of the machine gun that rendered the volley sight system obsolete and it is why they were removed. Though SMLE's can still be found with the sights still intact. Images courtesy of Lewis Maynard


  source 

As Michael was trying to say:  It depends.

The SMLE (Short Magazine Lee Enfield) firing .303 ( a round not much different than the 7.62 currently in use on the C6) in 1915 had an "effective" range of 2800 yards. ...... If the entire platoon lined up and peppered a given area of ground 2 miles away the Platoon would get kills.  No individual rifleman could achieve an individual kill but the rounds were still "effective" at denying the ground to the enemy.

The effective range of the C6 with open sights is less than the effective range with the C2A1 sights,  assuming they still issue those.


----------



## fletchsd (3 Apr 2009)

Brihard is absolutely correct.  
To sum up...
You normally zero your weapon AT 100m, FOR a 200m zero.  You can really zero it at any range from 25-100, but the point is that the bullet will hit exactly where you are aiming at 200m, which is the first setting of the C79.  When we zero at 100m, its exactly as Wonderbread says, the bullet will strike the target 50mm above your point of aim (POA).  This is because the bullet will fall 50mm between 100m and 200m, therefore hitting where you are aiming at 200m.
Back to the original question, max effective range it is based on the abilities of a well trained soldier and their probability of hitting the target.  Recon 3690 is unfortunately quite incorrect even with some fancy numbers.  Accuracy of the weapon plays a role, but you can see it is based on the probability of hitting the target more than ballistics.  This is proven in the fact that when employed by a section of soldiers, the max effective range of the C-7 is 600m.

Cheers


----------



## Nfld Sapper (3 Apr 2009)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The effective range of the C6 with open sights is less than the effective range with the C2A1 sights,  assuming they still issue those.



If you are talking about the C6 in the SF Role then yes the C2 sight is issued.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Apr 2009)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> If you are talking about the C6 in the SF Role then yes the C2 sight is issued.



That's what I was talking about Sapper.  Thx.


----------



## ballz (3 Apr 2009)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Fully trained gunsmith?
> 
> By whose standards?
> 
> ...



I <3 this website for this reason



			
				dangerboy said:
			
		

> The pam has been renamed it is now called "Canadian Forces Operational Shooting Program", they have changed some of the shoots.



So this document should be readily available at St. Jean when I go in May?


----------



## dangerboy (4 Apr 2009)

ballz said:
			
		

> So this document should be readily available at St. Jean when I go in May?



As a candidate you probably will not see any pams, your instructors will use them as references and pass on the info from them.  Once you finish your training and get to a BN you could get access to it fairly easily.


----------



## SupersonicMax (4 Apr 2009)

fletchsd said:
			
		

> Back to the original question, max effective range it is based on the abilities of a well trained soldier and their probability of hitting the target.





			
				fletchsd said:
			
		

> Accuracy of the weapon plays a role, but you can see it is based on the probability of hitting the target more than ballistics.






			
				fletchsd said:
			
		

> This is proven in the fact that when employed by a section of soldiers, the max effective range of the C-7 is 600m.



So you're saying it's been proven that it is impossible to train people to shoot something beyong 600m, and do it efficiently?


----------



## fletchsd (4 Apr 2009)

Supersonic, Please don't put words in my mouth.  I'm sure it is possible to train people to engage targets past 600m.
However, the probability of a soldier to do so with the C-7 is low.  We are talking about max effective range for a weapon system.  This means that a qualified soldier will be able to effectively hit the target up too and including this distance most of the time.  
Why is this important?  Let's use a defensive position as an example.  Knowing the max effective range of a weapon allows a commander to place his weapon systems in a position to engage the enemy at that range where they are most likely to hit it.  The distance a shot on target is probable, not just possible.  It will also help dictate the open fire policy. 
Is it possible to hit targets past max effective range? - yes.  
Is it probable that an individual with a C-7 will consistently hit the targets past 400m?- no.
So, this specific range is based on the probability of constantly hitting the target.  It is a result of many factors such as the weapon, the projectile, the shooter, but in the end its all about the range past which you are less likely to hit the target based on the influence of these factors.


----------



## SupersonicMax (4 Apr 2009)

You will agree that the more you train, the better you become at hitting a target.  You're saying the effective range is a function of the level of traninig we give our troops.  I agree, but shouldn't this info not be given in the open like here?  Just like any other weapons, I think the ranges should be kept on the low side. 

I think it is possible to train troops to consistently hit targets beyong the 600m range, but for different reasons, we decided not to do it and we set the standard to 600m.  This is where I ultimately wanted to go.  So, "It is a proven fact that when employed by a section of soldiers, with the current standard of proficiency, the max effective range of the C-7 is 600m. " would have been more accurate.  I know, it's words, but I think it is important to make the distinction.


----------



## muskrat89 (4 Apr 2009)

???


----------



## SupersonicMax (4 Apr 2009)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> ???



The weapon can fire and kill someone at let's say 1000m.  We train guys to kill targets at 400m.  Therefore, from fletchsd's definition, the effective range is 400m (since it depends on the ability for trained troops to consistently hit the target from the effective range).  If we train our troops to kill targets at 800m, it makes the effective range 800m, doesn't it?


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 Apr 2009)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The weapon can fire and kill someone at let's say 1000m.  We train guys to kill targets at 400m.  Therefore, from fletchsd's definition, the effective range is 400m (since it depends on the ability for trained troops to consistently hit the target from the effective range).  If we train our troops to kill targets at 800m, it makes the effective range 800m, doesn't it?



Perhaps you, and everyone else, missed this post.

The many preceding and following posts on ballistics trivia and semantics really have nothing to do with the question.


----------



## chris_log (4 Apr 2009)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The weapon can fire and kill someone at let's say 1000m.  We train guys to kill targets at 400m.  Therefore, from fletchsd's definition, the effective range is 400m (since it depends on the ability for trained troops to consistently hit the target from the effective range).  If we train our troops to kill targets at 800m, it makes the effective range 800m, doesn't it?



How many engagements at the section/platoon level when the C7 is employed occur at 800-1000 meters (this is actually a question for those in the know)? 

'Effective range' isn't as much a reference to the ballistic capabilities of the rifle as it is a reference to how the weapon is employed by its users. 

And maybe I'm just not as great a shooter as some, but hitting a target at 1000 meters with your 'standard issue' C7 is pretty darn hard and (having not been in combat, this is IMHO) not exactly an effective method of engaging a target. At that distance, is that not what we have heavier/larger caliber weapons for?


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Apr 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Perhaps you, and everyone else, missed this post.
> 
> The many preceding and following posts on ballistics trivia and semantics really have nothing to do with the question.



Keep trying Michael.  ;D


----------



## brihard (7 Apr 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Correction to my last:
> 
> The Correct Zero Point (CZP) of a C7 and C79 sight at 100M is exactly 50mm (about 2") above the Point of Aim (POA) in order to achieve a 200m zero. In addition, a C7 Rifle zeroed for 200m will also be zeroed at 54m because this is where the Trajectory intersects the Line of Sight _before_ reaching the Culminating Point.
> 
> ...



Ugh, you're absolutely right, I'm kind of embarrassed. In my defense I'm used to zeroing at 25m, and with an EOTech. Not that that is in any way an excuse not to know this.



			
				Piper said:
			
		

> How many engagements at the section/platoon level when the C7 is employed occur at 800-1000 meters (this is actually a question for those in the know)?



They didn't. (Caveat- my knowledge is 'institutional' experience from being in theater, I did not personally come under effective enemy fire.) There were situations where some dumbass would pop shots with an AK from 800m or so (happened to us a couple of times, and we had to be told about it by our helicopter overwatch), but these were uncommon, and I don't recall every hearing or reading of an instance where it was effective. If a commander did deem that this warranted attention, generally the appropriate response (if there was a visual on the target) would be to hit him with a LAV's main gun, or another crew served weapon. Alternatively, artillery or air assets might take him out. Much more likely, the target simply would not be spotted or positively identified, and the contact would forever be lost in the annals of SHOTREP legend. This seemed to be the norm in probably the majority of small engagements. The terrain was complex enough to afford excellent cover and concealment for the enemy in most places, so only the truly stupid ones would expose themselves at such distances, and those who did got to learn about Darwinism very quickly.

If there was ever an instance in theater of C7s being used out to 800m+, I never heard of it. Someone with better first hand knowledge will probably be able to give a more solid figure of the longer end of the norm, and I'd estimate it would be around half that.

Speaking strictly form a theoretical but pragmatic standpoint, if you can see a target that far out, why shoot at it with 5.56 when you can hit it with 25mm, 155mm, or a 500lb JDAM? You're much more likely to kill the target that way. The 5.56mm round loses a great deal of lethality at that distance.


----------



## Fusaki (7 Apr 2009)

> In my defense I'm used to zeroing at 25m, and with an EOTech. Not that that is in any way an excuse not to know this.



For a 200m Zero on a 25m range your first post was actually partially correct: at 25m with a C7 your CZP is 30mm _below_ your POA.

For the C8 a 200m zero on a 100m range is acquired with a CZP 70mm above the POA, and on a 25m range a 200m zero is aquired with a CZP 35mm below the POA.

From http://www.scribd.com/doc/3617434/canadian-bgl382003pt001-2002 Pg 104

Here's a few questions for those in the know:

- The numbers I pulled for the C8 above are noted as for the iron sight.  Is it correct to assume that the CZP would not change when using a C79?

- Given that a C8 fires on a different trajectory then a C7, how far off zero will a C8's C79 be at 300 meters? I know that different model ACOGs will use a different bullet drop compensator depending on whether it was designed for an M16 or an M4.  It stands to reason that while the range dial on a C79 is accurate for a full sized C7, it must not be on a lower velocity C8.

- What is the correct CZP for a 200m zero on a C8FTHB on a 100m range?

- How close is the actual trajectory of a C8FTHB to the range dial on a C79?


----------



## SteveB (8 Apr 2009)

I wouldn't put much faith in the C79's BDC.  In my experience, the 400 and 500 meter settings were off.
I think that 400 meters is about the max effective range for most trained infanteers.  I would say that on a known distance range most guys would achieve around 50% chance of a hit on a fig11 with a two round engagement.

Now that's not a study but, a pretty good guess.  I suppose that one must define effectiveness more     precisely.  Also effective against point or area targets. (more for MGs but someone brought up volley fire).  Also the difference between effective and harassing fire.  

Ballistically, there will be no round fragmentation at these ranges but, at 300 plus meters rapid incapacitation isn't as important, a good festering wound is propably enough.


Steve


----------



## ExSarge (8 Apr 2009)

I’ve been following this thread with some interest and I would like to offer the following observations.

First, how impressed I’m with the level of arcane technical knowledge being discussed by some relatively junior members of our military. It speaks to the over all level of professionalism of our armed forces.

Secondly, if I may, although the discussion is interesting on a technical level it misses the obvious. Maximum range and even maximum effective range are for the most part irrelevant to all put a very few specialist shooters. Most combat engagements (infantry versus infantry) will take place at ranges of 350 meters or less. Most troops, regardless of there level of proficiency with their weapons when engaging those (“pop up – shoot back”) targets have a hard time making hits at ranges greater then 150 meters. Take it from someone that’s been there, when those first rounds start to come inbound you have a massive adrenalin dump, your out of breath from running (it’s rule I’m sure, troops have to be tired, out of breath, sweaty and uncomfortable before they can engage in combat) Your trying to get closer to the ground or under cover and at the same time get rounds off at a target that you have not fixed or perhaps yet identified. All these things contribute to a lot hit to expended round rate. I remember seeing somewhere that a study was done during the Viet Nam war that calculated it took an expenditure of 5000 for each kill. I don’t vouch for the veracity of the study, indeed if there even was one done. I would not however argue with the numbers, I suspect that’s about right.


----------



## brihard (8 Apr 2009)

ExSarge said:
			
		

> I’ve been following this thread with some interest and I would like to offer the following observations.
> 
> First, how impressed I’m with the level of arcane technical knowledge being discussed by some relatively junior members of our military. It speaks to the over all level of professionalism of our armed forces.
> 
> Secondly, if I may, although the discussion is interesting on a technical level it misses the obvious. Maximum range and even maximum effective range are for the most part irrelevant to all put a very few specialist shooters. Most combat engagements (infantry versus infantry) will take place at ranges of 350 meters or less. Most troops, regardless of there level of proficiency with their weapons when engaging those (“pop up – shoot back”) targets have a hard time making hits at ranges greater then 150 meters. Take it from someone that’s been there, when those first rounds start to come inbound you have a massive adrenalin dump, your out of breath from running (it’s rule I’m sure, troops have to be tired, out of breath, sweaty and uncomfortable before they can engage in combat) Your trying to get closer to the ground or under cover and at the same time get rounds off at a target that you have not fixed or perhaps yet identified. All these things contribute to a lot hit to expended round rate. I remember seeing somewhere that a study was done during the Viet Nam war that calculated it took an expenditure of 5000 for each kill. I don’t vouch for the veracity of the study, indeed if there even was one done. I would not however argue with the numbers, I suspect that’s about right.



I certainly won't argue the merit of your figures. God knows how they were derived, but they certainly have the ring of truth and plausibility to them.

One caveat that I'll add, though, is that a significant amount of fire downrange will be employed simply for suppression to allow another element to maneuver. During the prototypical dismounted platoon attack, for instance, how many rounds are being fired simply into the general area of the enemy to keep their heads down, particular by the C6 and the LMGs, while the assault element hooks in?

I don't think that combat marksmanship can be assessed simply by contrasting shots fired / kills ratios, since that belies the effectiveness of suppression fire in seizing and maintaining the initiative. Fire can be 'effective' without physically striking the enemy, if it allows you to win the firefight and either close with them to take them out, or achieve other short term tactical goals, be it the repositioning of elements, disengagement, or what have you. Quantity can have a quality all of its own, under the right circumstances. And indeed, coming full circle, I think this sort of massed suppression fire at the section level or above is where we'll ultimately find that the figure of 400m for 'effective range' was derived- tactically effective, if not necessarily lethal.


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Apr 2009)

Hmmmm, tactical considerations, who could have imagined that through the smokescreen of "arcane technical knowledge".


----------



## helpup (8 Apr 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Hmmmm, tactical considerations, who could have imagined that through the smokescreen of "arcane technical knowledge".



Arcane?!  More like amusing, and most definately ASININE!!  I was reading through it and Kudos to those who called him on his "wordy" Drivel.  

To add little to the orriginal question that has, through the mushrooms been answered.  

Yes with experience the C7 with ALCAN or Iron sight can as an individual provide accurate fire out to 500 and even 600.  However that is not the normal abilities of our soldiers.  At 400m it is easy to be accurate on a Fig 11 but you need  the Trg for it.  But even for experienced competitive shooters 500 - 600m is not a walk in the park and wind, light level, position will cause major effect. Add to that the angle your barrel is now pointing causes certain condtions to your prone position and adjustments of kit ( i.e helmet).

I did a pop up Tgt demo range last year.  The range was laid out stradling a dirt road and had 4-6 pop up "lockheed" Tgt's at 100m intervals out to 600.  The ground was clear and the Firing point on top of a hill.  Beyond 400m we had strips of mine tape on the Tgt to help identify the Tgt's when they came up.  The troops knew where the Tgt's were as they built the range.  The conduct was in phases.  1st phase was Tgt's up at 100 and they shot them, tgt's down when hit.  This went on out to 300m.  ( note we re-zeroed anyone who needed it at the range but most were already zeroed from PWT a week earlier)  100m was not too bad but there were still some multiple engagements to make the Tgt go down.  At 200m we doubled the # of multiple engagements of a Tgt to make it fall.  300m most had trouble making the Tgt go down consitantly.  Next phase was on to Sect Fire 400 - 600.  Successfull engagements even with Sect Fire was difficult for the troops to succeed in.  They were also having trouble identifying Tgt's.  At 500m it was worse and 50% of Tgts were not brought down ( after 28rds per man 4 man relay, Yah I know not a sect but I had all 4 fire on same Tgt ) 600m only 1 Tgt hit and most had to be full Tgt indication to get them to see the Tgt. 

Phase one and two had me calling out the range.  The Third phase was pop up advancing troops from the 600 - 100, individual soldiers giving out Tgt indications to a 4 man Det. The result, nothing was seen at 600,  finally seen at 500 but nothing hit.  1 Tgt hit at 400.  2 Tgt's hit at 300.  and the rest went ok.  

The final phase had individual competition ( after I briefed the troops on conduct so far) 
All Tgts were to pop up from 400 to 100 and would go down when hit,  They had 22 Tgts to shoot at and one full Mag (those who listened only loaded 28 Rds )to engage it with.  I made them a bet I would be suprised if more then 2 would be able to do it ( out of 30 shooters. )

end result.  Large percentage got most of the Trgts before running out of ammo, small percentage only got 50% of Tgt's.  One person got all the Tgt's with 4 Rds left. I added to that number by shootting myself and having 5 rds left.  

I will add that the troops I was putting through had only a couple of years in the army and not that much range time or experience.  But they did learn from it.  

(P.S) spell checking is not working.


----------



## Fusaki (8 Apr 2009)

> Hmmmm, tactical considerations, who could have imagined that through the smokescreen of "arcane technical knowledge".



Not to imply that technical knowledge has no bearing on tactical considerations, though. While technical capabilities of the equipment is only one piece of the tactical puzzle, it _is_ still a piece.

I don't think anyone is saying ballistics is the "be all and end all". Well, I didn't mean that anyways...


----------



## helpup (8 Apr 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Not to imply that technical knowledge has no bearing on tactical considerations, though. While technical capabilities of the equipment is only one piece of the tactical puzzle, it _is_ still a piece.
> 
> I don't think anyone is saying ballistics is the "be all and end all". Well, I didn't mean that anyways...



I am pretty sure no one was refering to you wonderbread


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Apr 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Not to imply that technical knowledge has no bearing on tactical considerations, though. While technical capabilities of the equipment is only one piece of the tactical puzzle, it _is_ still a piece.
> 
> I don't think anyone is saying ballistics is the "be all and end all". Well, I didn't mean that anyways...



Yes, the technical characteristics of a weapon system are a factor in determining its possible "effective range", but nowhere near the extent that this thread attempted to explore in relation to the original question while completely ignoring, for the most part, the fact that the "effective range" being asked about is a tactical measure.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (8 Apr 2009)

helpup said:
			
		

> I did a pop up Tgt demo range last year.  The range was laid out stradling a dirt road and had 4-6 pop up "lockheed" Tgt's at 100m intervals out to 600.  The ground was clear and the Firing point on top of a hill.  Beyond 400m we had strips of mine tape on the Tgt to help identify the Tgt's when they came up.  The troops knew where the Tgt's were as they built the range.  The conduct was in phases.
> 
> end result.  Large percentage got most of the Trgts before running out of ammo, small percentage only got 50% of Tgt's.  One person got all the Tgt's with 4 Rds left. I added to that number by shootting myself and having 5 rds left.
> 
> I will add that the troops I was putting through had only a couple of years in the army and not that much range time or experience.  But they did learn from it.



Great post! If nothing else, this thread has given me an excellent example of an interesting range that can run at a fairly low level.

Cheers

p.s. As a complete aside I asked my US Army classmates on a course down south about the maximum effective range on their 120mm cannon. I was surprised that they couldn't instantly regurgitate a number in the fashion that I was drilled on my gunnery courses. When I asked about that they added that they had found that they could hit targets beyond the range they could positively identify them. Since the identification range was so variable (for any number of tactical reasons) they had no hard and fast number.


----------



## helpup (9 Apr 2009)

There are all kinds of interesting ranges that can be set up to improve marksmanship skills.

To tie into this thead something the CF has gotten away from is basic shooting skills.  We use to do Gun Camps for a couple of weeks prior to PWT. We would start doing Dry Fire ( I am a big proponent of this as it builds muscle memory) Then at the ranges usually utilizing Rifle Team troops as coaches, we would go through various shooting drills in differant positions and ranges.  ( 50m to 500+)  Then fire PWT prior to doing more advanced ranges.  

But we have gotten away from that.  Your average soldier is lucky to get more than 200 live rounds during a year that does not involve work up Trg for a tour and a Large chunck of that ammo is for the actual qualification.  I am fully familiar with the shoot to live package and what it calls for.  However units with thier scheduals and in some cases budgets can not come near being able to do this.  

Sure we have the FATS trg ( or Simm ) and simunition but by and large we do not use it enough.  (And yes I have been pushing for it most of my Career) There is an added problem.  The Urban Ops Crse focuses on close quarter shooting (and rightly so) But due to that we have steped back even further from basic marksman ship skills.  ( I am having NCO's trying to tell Pte's that this is the new position and they must use it, refering to a Posn that is intended for close quarter shooting not anything beyond 50m)

With the emphasis on Close quarter even less is done on conventional shooting skills. And this quite frankly is WRONG!  If you understand and are able to apply the basics, you also must build up the muscle memory for it or you can not do it instinctivley. You can only do this through repitition at all ranges.  Once you are up to speed on that you can shoot anything at any range including the Close Quarter ones.  However being a good shot at close range does not mean you can shoot well on conventional. 

I am going to avoid getting into the debate about the most common ranges Tgt's are engaged in.  However I will state my preferance that all members of the Cbt Arms need to be highly skilled at engaging a Tgt at 400m down to 100m.  (if they are not consistant at 400m fine that is what Sect fire is for) I am a firm believer of Trg beyond what you expect as when it doesnt get that bad you will be that much better.

As for setting up non conventional ranges, my earlier example is just a simple one that I picked up before we had Lockheed Tgts,  Another eye opener range for me as using balloons tied to Fig 11 placed on a skid and towed (at 5-10kph) towards the firing point from 300m.  A full Sect was firing and the first ballon was hit at 200m, the last one hit at 100m.  By experienced troops, That range btw was used as a Demo prior to gun camp to show the troops they were not as good as they thought.  After Gun camp same range, all the balloons shot in first round of Sect Fire at 300m.


----------



## helpup (9 Apr 2009)

To add;
 To the orriginal poster, if I recall correctly you are about to join.  My advice ignore the facts and figures given out here.  Kudo's for being interested in them though. Regardless of your current knowledge go there thinking you know nothing.  Learn the marksmanship principals and fully understand what they mean physically.  If you can practice your positions, Aim, and firing.  Do not get burried in the technical details (outside of what you must know)  After St. Jean then get into the books as needed. Take every opportunity to improve your skills, ( you would be surprised how much you may have to take the initiative for on this) 
Shooting is a basic skill, shooting well is a learned skill that only comes with practice, understanding and the application of the basics.


----------

