View Full Version : Barrel Lengths and Maximum Range Myths
Eurodriver
12-29-11, 08:17
IG had mentioned a myth busting barrel length thread so I decided to make this. I have read many threads and there always seems to be someone spouting off as gospel that short barrels aren't capable of long range engagements. Some even claim long barrels (20"+) aren't capable of it!
As someone who has accurately shot a 10.5" issued Mk18 with a 4x PVQ31B using issued Lake City M855 out to 500 yards on a USMC Echo Target (20"x40") in 15-20MPH full value Hawaiian tradewinds winds I find the "maximum ranges" people talk about comical. I have also shot and trained others to shoot issued M4 Carbines (14.5" barrels) out to 800 meters also using the PVQ31B during my time as an instructor attached to I MEF / MNF-W in Iraq. I won't even lie to you and say that the rifles are effective at that range, but hits can be made.
I know to some, having a 4 MOA group at 500 yards is unacceptable accuracy but I do not hunt varmints and these shots were not recorded for group size but for hitting the target. Since every round was an impact I suspect that it was indeed less than 4MOA although the rounds theoretically could have vertically stringed out more than 4MOA. My only regret is not having the guys in the Pits measure shot group sizes while I had the chance.
It did not help that proper use of the ACOG dictates kentucky windage either. There is no dialing in to compensate for wind, just hold overs. I'd also like to point out that virtually every US Marine can shoot a 14.5" M4 Carbine to 500 yards...with iron sights.
Using the PVQ31B (Essentially a TA31RCOM4 ACOG) the hold over for the 10.3" was not even noticably higher than that of the 14.5". Wind affected the round more, but I could still empty an entire magazine into the black from the prone unsupported. This means no sandbag, no mat, no rest, no shooting jacket. Nearly every Wednesday some US Marine with a chrome lined, M16A2, M16A4, or M4 using Lake City M855 is qualifying at 500 yards.
As a civilian I have made coke-can sized hits with my 12.5" BCM Stainless Steel upper at 400 yards. I zeroed my 10.3" SBR at 200 yards. Even if you are paper punching and measuring groups by the tenths of inches at 500 yards I can't imagine anyone ever needing anything longer than a quality 16" stainless steel barrel. Of course this is just my opinion, and many people like the extra velocity (and thus the lack of wind deviation) that an 18" or 20" barrel provides. As far as combat accuracy goes, I don't think I'll ever buy an AR with a barrel longer than 12.5" ever again. again, thats just me.
I made this thread to mention real life no bullshit experiences with various barrel lengths. I feel that most people who make these assumptions do it because they have no experience with it. Assuming they can actually shoot, if they just get in a good position and move that target to 500 yards I think they'd be pretty surprised.
since it's obvious that you can get hits at long range with short barrels, maybe it's time to reframe the discussion as to the effective range of the 5.56 in a shorter barrel...
since it's obvious that you can get hits at long range with short barrels, maybe it's time to reframe the discussion as to the effective range of the 5.56 in a shorter barrel...
This. Its not about the ability of these short carbines to place rounds on a target at these long ranges, but moreso the ability for these carbines to incapacitate with a single shot at these given ranges. The fact is, with a longer barrel, you have more velocity initially and at impact, which equals more tumbling and fragmenting upon said impact.
jonconsiglio
12-29-11, 13:55
Effective range is always a good conversation. I had saved the effective ranges of 75 gr 5.56 TAP where it stills fragments reliably and consistently from a few different barrel lengths. Using a fragmentation threshold of 2,250 fps, it was something like 50 yards from a 10.5", 150 yards from a 14.5", 185 from a 16" and about 230 yards from a 20". You can subtract about 60 to 70 yards from those numbers (except the 10.5") and that'll give you an idea of the 75gr TAP in 223 as opposed to 5.56. Mk262, from what I understand, will be a little less, but we all know there are confirmed kills and much longer ranges.
TSX pretty much doubles these ranges where it's still performing at or near 100%. the performance threshold for TSX is 2,000 for 50gr, 1,900 for 55 and 62gr and 1,800 for 70gr. So, that gives you an effective range where still performing at its max over 200 yards, nearly 4 times that of TAP.
FYI - I'm just repeating the results that others have already documented. Molon is a main source of that info as is Dr Roberts, of course. I'll need to double check those TAP numbers though. I know they're close, but not exact.
Keep in mind that these are just the ranges where they perform at their max. A member here, from what I understand, has at least a couple confirmed kills with a 10.5" and Mk262 at distances close to 400 meters.
TSX seems to be taking the 5.56 to a higher level over OTM bullets. It appears to be a great choice for all barrel lengths. Not trying to turn this into a ballistics and bullet choice discussion, but when talking about 5.56 especially, it's very hard to not bring up specific ammunition.
For 5.56mm, I'd settle for any hit at 500-800 yards personally. I don't know of any bullet that's going to be traveling fast enough that far out that will perform as it would at say 100 or even 200 yards. With the drop in velocity I would be surprised if anything reliably fragmented or maintained a controlled expansion, and would instead expect it to either sloppily mushroom or just remain a .22 caliber icepick until it's energy was expended.
Even so. There are two Taliban who were shot and killed at 600 and 800 meters respectively who would disagree. Mk 262 MOD 1, M4 carbine.
For 5.56mm, I'd settle for any hit at 500-800 yards personally. I don't know of any bullet that's going to be traveling fast enough that far out that will perform as it would at say 100 or even 200 yards. With the drop in velocity I would be surprised if anything reliably fragmented or maintained a controlled expansion, and would instead expect it to either sloppily mushroom or just remain a .22 caliber icepick until it's energy was expended.
jonconsiglio
12-29-11, 14:50
Even so. There are two Taliban who were shot and killed at 600 and 800 meters respectively who would disagree. Mk 262 MOD 1, M4 carbine.
Exactly. That's what I was saying about the 10.5" with Mk262. It may perform at 100% only out to about 40 meters or so, but that same combo has definitely put some guys in the dirt at distances 10 times that.
Right. Effective range and the range at which you can make a hit are one and the same. Effective range is not the range at which the terminal performance of the round meets some X, Y, or Z standard.
Along the lines of "effective" range....
We shot my 1/4" mild steel target at 600 yards Monday. 4 Rifles, and 4 calibers.
1. 11.5 AR - made the usual lead splatter mark on the gong, and you could hear most of the hits.
2. 308 WIN - 20" barrels with 175 SMKs. These put obvious Dents in the steel. Knocked it pretty good. Would definitely be more than effective at that distance.
3 and 4. 7mm Rem Mag and 300 Win Mag. I lumped these two together because we couldn't tell which hits belonged to which caliber. But they both put massive dents in the steel and one of them actually penetrated.
We'd shot this same gong at 800 and 1000 before with no damage of any kind with any of the guns.
My comment was in no way to imply that 5.56mm isn't lethal out to 500-800 yards because it obviously is. A sloppy mushroom is more than enough to put someone down in short order.
Since people have differing ideas of what "effective" means, I was just saying that at 500-800 yards I don't know of any bullets that will perform as their design is intended/marketed. Some take "effective" to mean a hit, others take it to mean fragmentation/expansion, others have maybe more definitions.
Even so. There are two Taliban who were shot and killed at 600 and 800 meters respectively who would disagree. Mk 262 MOD 1, M4 carbine.
There are also several Russian soldiers that were shot and killed at 300-500m by .22lr sporting rifle in Chechnya. Does it make .22lr suitable for use as combat weapon at distances of 300-500m?
5.56 even from 10" can be deadly at 1000yards or more, if it will hit in right place. If we use enough number of rounds and will try, eventually it will happen. Pure probability maths. But does it mean 1000yard is effective range for 5.56 round?
jonconsiglio
12-29-11, 16:52
Double post
jonconsiglio
12-29-11, 16:59
There are also several Russian soldiers that were shot and killed at 300-500m by .22lr sporting rifle in Chechnya. Does it make .22lr suitable for use as combat weapon at distances of 300-500m?
5.56 even from 10" can be deadly at 1000yards or more, if it will hit in right place. If we use enough number of rounds and will try, eventually it will happen. Pure probability maths. But does it mean 1000yard is effective range for 5.56 round?
No. But, 5.56 Mk262 from an 18" barrel, you can definitely say it has an effective range of 600 meters. You can also say Mk262 has a range of maximum performance, where yaw and fragmentation are reliable and consistent, of roughly 200 to 250 meters. After that, it's still effective with good hits.
I would consider an effective range with a particular caliber the point where You could no longer say you would incapacitate consistently. Those ranges will vary with barrel length and ammo used, but with a 14.5" barrel and quality ammo, it would be fair to say that 500 yards or more is a consistent effective range.
For effective range, personally I'll take into account (an average) the level and speed of incapacitation per distance and the projectiles performance regarding wind and drop, which is also a consideration of the probability of making a good hit.
I would consider an effective range with a particular caliber the point where You could no longer say you would incapacitate consistently. Those ranges will vary with barrel length and ammo used,
I think this is good definition.
RogerinTPA
12-29-11, 17:45
Fragmentation is only truly effective to about 160M or so. 200m is a stretch. The closer you get to 200m, the more likely that the round won't fragment at all. That's under ideal conditions. There are many real world cases where the round failed to fragment, to include conducting CQB. Regardless of range, shot placement is key, as many times as it takes.
jonconsiglio
12-29-11, 18:55
Fragmentation is only truly effective to about 160M or so. 200m is a stretch. The closer you get to 200m, the more likely that the round won't fragment at all. That's under ideal conditions. There are many real world cases where the round failed to fragment, to include conducting CQB. Regardless of range, shot placement is key, as many times as it takes.
What barrel length are you referring too? 75gr TAP 5.56 from a 14.5" is said to be consistent at 165 yards while it'll stay consistent to about 100 yards with 75gr TAP 223.
According to Molon and the velocity threshold of 2,250 for 5.56 75gr TAP, we can expect consistent reliable fragmentation from a 16" barrel to 185 yards and 230 yards for a 20" barrel. 223 TAP 75gr from a 20" barrel will be about 165 yards.
This is not my testing, just repeating the results. The T2 bullet of the 5.56 TAP has better fragmentation properties. According to Hornady, if I remember correctly, they listed the threshold at 2,200, so Molon used 2,300 then lowered it to 2,250 to be conservative.
Either way, 150 yards is a safe bet and a good way to look at it. TSX on the other hand pushes the effective range where it still performs at its max quite a bit further. I've personally been moving away from OTM loads in my rifles.
Eurodriver
12-29-11, 18:57
Does anyone have any solid data on velocities out of a 10.5" barrel firing 62gr ammunition at 500 yards? 600? 700?
Another thing to point out is that at 600 yards, my definition of "effectiveness" of a round is different than it is at 50 yards.
At 50 yards I want to the guy DRT.
At 600 yards, of course DRT would be preferable but if he mopes around for a bit it is not as dangerous to me as if he were closer.
Of course of course of course there's that "What if he's laying down accurate sniper fire on your guys..." but I'm speaking in general.
jonconsiglio
12-29-11, 19:05
Does anyone have any solid data on velocities out of a 10.5" barrel firing 62gr ammunition at 500 yards? 600? 700?
Another thing to point out is that at 600 yards, my definition of "effectiveness" of a round is different than it is at 50 yards.
At 50 yards I want to the guy DRT.
At 600 yards, of course DRT would be preferable but if he mopes around for a bit it is not as dangerous to me as if he were closer.
Of course of course of course there's that "What if he's laying down accurate sniper fire on your guys..." but I'm speaking in general.
M855 from a 10.5" should have a velocity around 2,630. At 500 yards, you're looking at a velocity closer to 1,350. You'll drop to roughly 1,250 at 600 and 1,150 at 700.
There will likely not be enough velocity from even the muzzle for fragmentation from m855. A 14.5" will only fragment m855 to 40 meters or so. Mk262 will only fragment reliably to about 12 meters from a 10.5" and 75gr 5.56 TAP to about 35 meters.
Out of a 10.5", it's very hard to beat TSX, whether you choose 55, 62 or 70gr. The 50gr is probably the best of the TSX line for barrier penetration, but it's not as effective at distance as the 55 through 70gr.
Keep in mind these are all estimates. Things like atmospheric conditions and different barrels of the same length can cause deviations in velocity. Just didn't want anyone thinking I was trying to say this is exact info.
Shorter barrels are more accurate/consistent. I thought that little fact was starting to catch on. Maybe not if the ability to hit stuff far away with a SBR is so shocking.
Since we're talking about the ability to hit targets in excess of 500 meters with M4 and shorter barrels, here's a little perspective from the paper punching world. Most shooters don't use a 20" service rifle for 1k matches because the .223 has vertical stringing issues at that distance. The issue isn't that the round can't group at that distance, it's that the velocity is taking a beating and the rounds are plunging at a pretty steep angle relative to the target. Even very good shooters see their groups open up a bit vertically because even the smallest mistakes in sight picture translate into off call hits at 1k.
RogerinTPA
12-29-11, 22:04
I was referring to standard issue ball ammo for a carbine, not civilian ammo.
What barrel length are you referring too? 75gr TAP 5.56 from a 14.5" is said to be consistent at 165 yards while it'll stay consistent to about 100 yards with 75gr TAP 223.
According to Molon and the velocity threshold of 2,250 for 5.56 75gr TAP, we can expect consistent reliable fragmentation from a 16" barrel to 185 yards and 230 yards for a 20" barrel. 223 TAP 75gr from a 20" barrel will be about 165 yards.
This is not my testing, just repeating the results. The T2 bullet of the 5.56 TAP has better fragmentation properties. According to Hornady, if I remember correctly, they listed the threshold at 2,200, so Molon used 2,300 then lowered it to 2,250 to be conservative.
Either way, 150 yards is a safe bet and a good way to look at it. TSX on the other hand pushes the effective range where it still performs at its max quite a bit further. I've personally been moving away from OTM loads in my rifles.
jonconsiglio
12-29-11, 22:54
I was referring to standard issue ball ammo for a carbine, not civilian ammo.
Well then that's much less than 200. Less than 50 meters from a 14.5".
Suwannee Tim
12-30-11, 18:49
Other than military combat or because you can I wonder what the point is of shooting at something 600 yards away with a 5.56. If I'm going to try to hurt something 600 yards away or even 300 yards away I would sure rather have a 7.62 or a magnum to apply the hurtin.
Other than military combat or because you can I wonder what the point is of shooting at something 600 yards away with a 5.56. If I'm going to try to hurt something 600 yards away or even 300 yards away I would sure rather have a 7.62 or a magnum to apply the hurtin.
Why not master your weapon to the limits of its ability. If you see what your weapon will do at 600, making a hit at 200 or 300 is something done with complete confidence.
Suwannee Tim
12-30-11, 19:55
Why not master your weapon to the limits of its ability.....
That's the because you can reason. I do a bunch of stuff for that very reason.
I see it more as because I want to learn all that I can. I mean... it'd make more sense to run a 20" barreled 5.56 gun too.
But it's a real test of a shooters wind call ability to lob a round out of an 11.5 out to 600.
Suwannee Tim
12-30-11, 20:05
Never shot that far. I've shot 22 LR at 200 and the wind will blow it all over the place. I've shot handguns at 200 before the women who run Gateway Rifle Pistol Club became worried old women and made me quit. Hard to have any fun anymore. Cain't even shoot fast. You have to hold a 44 magnum about six feet over to hit at 200. It must be hard to spot the misses with a little bitty bullet at such a range.
..... it'd make more sense to run a 20" barreled 5.56 gun too.....
If everything I do had to make sense I'd have a hard time justifying my big bore rifle habit.
[QUOTE=Eurodriver;1182294]... my definition of "effectiveness" of a round is different than it is at 50 yards.
At 50 yards I want to the guy DRT.
At 600 yards, of course DRT would be preferable but if he mopes around for a bit it is not as dangerous to me as if he were closer./QUOTE]
+1
This makes perfect sense to me.
It seems like at 600yds just about any hit to center mass would be sufficient...
There are also several Russian soldiers that were shot and killed at 300-500m by .22lr sporting rifle in Chechnya. Does it make .22lr suitable for use as combat weapon at distances of 300-500m?
5.56 even from 10" can be deadly at 1000yards or more, if it will hit in right place. If we use enough number of rounds and will try, eventually it will happen. Pure probability maths. But does it mean 1000yard is effective range for 5.56 round?
:eek: That's crazy range for a .22lr to get a hit. Must have either been the shooters day, or the Russians day to get hit.
All this talk really has me wanting to cut my barrel down now =( if only I had a money tree!
All this talk really has me wanting to cut my barrel down now =( if only I had a money tree!
None of this talk changes the FACT that for best performance you should use the longest barrel that environmental / situational conditions allow. Considerations include: mounted operations, probability of MOUT engagements, etc.
Other than the obvious advantages of a shorter OAL, a short barrel is in all cases inferior for long range shooting when compared to a standard or long barrel for any given weapon system.
I'm not saying that SBR's aren't capable of long range performance. But sometimes that theme gets exaggerated and overstated on this forum. Less "whip" in the barrel doesn't overcome the other drawbacks.
Example: Noveske has stated that one of their most consistently "accurate" (what they mean to say is precise) barrels is their 12.5''. This is often repeated on this forum. While that may be true on a 100 yard range when shooting for groups; the statement has no bearing on the ability of a shooter to place ACCURATE fire on target at extended (and more importantly unknown) ranges when wind and trajectory come into play.
Just because a 12.5'' barrel can shoot X MOA at Y distance just like a 20'' barrel doesn't mean that it will be as easy to place accurate fire on target when wind and trajectory are factors.
I'm not saying anybody here is wrong about something they've said. But I think it's important that this fact be mentioned so nobody gets the wrong idea.
Further reading garding accuracy and precision for those upset about my usage of the words:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision
None of this talk changes the FACT that for best performance you should use the longest barrel that environmental / situational conditions allow. Considerations include: mounted operations, probability of MOUT engagements, etc.
Other than the obvious advantages of a shorter OAL, a short barrel is in all cases inferior for long range shooting when compared to a standard or long barrel for any given weapon system.
I'm not saying that SBR's aren't capable of long range performance. But sometimes that theme gets exaggerated and overstated on this forum. Less "whip" in the barrel doesn't overcome the other drawbacks.
Example: Noveske has stated that one of their most consistently "accurate" (what they mean to say is precise) barrels is their 12.5''. This is often repeated on this forum. While that may be true on a 100 yard range when shooting for groups; the statement has no bearing on the ability of a shooter to place ACCURATE fire on target at extended (and more importantly unknown) ranges when wind and trajectory come into play.
Just because a 12.5'' barrel can shoot X MOA at Y distance just like a 20'' barrel doesn't mean that it will be as easy to place accurate fire on target when wind and trajectory are factors.
I'm not saying anybody here is wrong about something they've said. But I think it's important that this fact be mentioned so nobody gets the wrong idea.
Further reading garding accuracy and precision for those upset about my usage of the words:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision
I was specifically meaning to cut my barrel down on my 5.7. It's not like it's a long range upper to begin with, and would be nice to have a bit of extra room for working around tight spaces. My other upper won't get below 18, but then again, it's because it's a hunting specific upper and generally sees longer ranges and bigger animals that what I'd be comfortable doing with a shorter barrel.
Eurodriver
12-31-11, 00:42
None of this talk changes the FACT that for best performance you should use the longest barrel that environmental / situational conditions allow. Considerations include: mounted operations, probability of MOUT engagements, etc.
Other than the obvious advantages of a shorter OAL, a short barrel is in all cases inferior for long range shooting when compared to a standard or long barrel for any given weapon system.
I'm not saying that SBR's aren't capable of long range performance. But sometimes that theme gets exaggerated and overstated on this forum. Less "whip" in the barrel doesn't overcome the other drawbacks.
Example: Noveske has stated that one of their most consistently "accurate" (what they mean to say is precise) barrels is their 12.5''. This is often repeated on this forum. While that may be true on a 100 yard range when shooting for groups; the statement has no bearing on the ability of a shooter to place ACCURATE fire on target at extended (and more importantly unknown) ranges when wind and trajectory come into play.
Just because a 12.5'' barrel can shoot X MOA at Y distance just like a 20'' barrel doesn't mean that it will be as easy to place accurate fire on target when wind and trajectory are factors.
I'm not saying anybody here is wrong about something they've said. But I think it's important that this fact be mentioned so nobody gets the wrong idea.
Further reading garding accuracy and precision for those upset about my usage of the words:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision
First, I value your insight and experience. What you say makes perfect sense and I do not disagree with one bit of it.
But I think you are missing the point of this thread.
Aside from when I said in the OP that I could never really see one needing a 5.56mm rifle with a barrel longer than 16" (Which is a separate issue), no one has said anything about how shooters shouldn't get a longer barrel for long range accuracy.
My goal behind making this thread (And that might have been pretty vague because my ****ing wife was annoying the hell out of me as I was writing it) was to bust a notion new and even old timer shooters have that an SBR is incapable of hits on anything further than 50 yards at the local indoor range.
Magic_Salad0892
12-31-11, 03:34
I can say that I am personally capable of making 600m hits with an 11.1'' barreled AR.
Irons, 4X ACOG, and 3.5X ACOG.
Yeah, your post was clear and I definitely agree that a lot of people underestimate the potential of SBR's at range. Like you said, a lot of people do actually think they're only good for 100 or less. You and some of the others disprove that myth all the time.
SBR's at long range get talked about a lot on M4C. It's a good thing because it means members here are pushing the envelope and rewriting traditional notions of effective range.
What lead my to reply the way I did to this post was this statement that somebody made...
"Shorter barrels are more accurate/consistent. I thought that little fact was starting to catch on. Maybe not if the ability to hit stuff far away with a SBR is so shocking."
The negative consequences of a short barrel rarely get mentioned (not necessarily talking about this thread at this point, but in the long range SBR threads in general). So, I just wanted to make the point that in the end long barrels are still better in all regards minus ease of handling...lest anybody get the wrong idea and start believing that they can cut their barrel down and shoot long range just as easily. That's just not the case. A lot of people forget that even though the potential precision of an SBR may be the same, the steeper trajectory makes minor errors in range estimation a LOT more likely to negatively affect the ability to place accurate fire on target.
My reply wasn't really directed at you, and I agree with what you've said also. I was just offering a counterpoint in case anybody got to thinking that an SBR was just as good as (or even better than) a long barrel in the accuracy department.
First, I value your insight and experience. What you say makes perfect sense and I do not disagree with one bit of it.
But I think you are missing the point of this thread.
Aside from when I said in the OP that I could never really see one needing a 5.56mm rifle with a barrel longer than 16" (Which is a separate issue), no one has said anything about how shooters shouldn't get a longer barrel for long range accuracy.
My goal behind making this thread (And that might have been pretty vague because my ****ing wife was annoying the hell out of me as I was writing it) was to bust a notion new and even old timer shooters have that an SBR is incapable of hits on anything further than 50 yards at the local indoor range.
Eurodriver
12-31-11, 11:26
A lot of people forget that even though the potential precision of an SBR may be the same, the steeper trajectory makes minor errors in range estimation a LOT more likely to negatively affect the ability to place accurate fire on target.
My reply wasn't really directed at you, and I agree with what you've said also. I was just offering a counterpoint in case anybody got to thinking that an SBR was just as good as (or even better than) a long barrel in the accuracy department.
I agree completely. If I knew I was going to be engaging 95% of targets at ranges beyond 500 meters, had to use a 5.56 AR platform weapon, and vehicle egress was not a concern I would have a 16" (or maybe 18"? ;) ) Recce.
Without a LRF or sitting on a KD range or worse engaging targets that *gasp* don't sit still and let you shoot at them...being off just a bit in range will cause massive errors.
If anyone gets to thinking that they should buy a 11.5" SBR to do long range target shooting they are smoking crack. But they're no more ****ed up than the guys who get the 11.5" SBR and refuse to even attempt 300 yard shots because "The barrel is too short".
Other than military combat or because you can I wonder what the point is of shooting at something 600 yards away with a 5.56. If I'm going to try to hurt something 600 yards away or even 300 yards away I would sure rather have a 7.62 or a magnum to apply the hurtin.
Prairie dogs and paper.
Never shot that far. I've shot 22 LR at 200 and the wind will blow it all over the place.
I think part of that may be the bullet going transonic. I mean... I used to be completely puzzled by the HUGE POI variations from rimfire at 200 yards.
I knew I didn't suck that bad.... I would see 6 feet POI variations on the backstop berm. Has to be transonic disruption.
There are also several Russian soldiers that were shot and killed at 300-500m by .22lr sporting rifle in Chechnya. Does it make .22lr suitable for use as combat weapon at distances of 300-500m?
5.56 even from 10" can be deadly at 1000yards or more, if it will hit in right place. If we use enough number of rounds and will try, eventually it will happen. Pure probability maths. But does it mean 1000yard is effective range for 5.56 round?If that is all you have to shoot it is.
There are also several Russian soldiers that were shot and killed at 300-500m by .22lr sporting rifle in Chechnya. ...
...
...
=====================================
Reminds me of a sig line someone used to have years ago that read something like this:
"A .22 rimfire bullet in the neck will ruin your day!"
:)
.
Other than military combat or because you can I wonder what the point is of shooting at something 600 yards away with a 5.56. If I'm going to try to hurt something 600 yards away or even 300 yards away I would sure rather have a 7.62 or a magnum to apply the hurtin.
because maybe your in a situation you can only have one gun and probably all shooting is within 300yds, then BAM, you need to make a shot out to 600yds. Obviously a larger gun is better, but not everyone is gonna run around with an m4 and an AI AWM on their back "just in case." Its good to push your limits with everything, shooting included;)
For 5.56mm, I'd settle for any hit at 500-800 yards personally. I don't know of any bullet that's going to be traveling fast enough that far out that will perform as it would at say 100 or even 200 yards. With the drop in velocity I would be surprised if anything reliably fragmented or maintained a controlled expansion, and would instead expect it to either sloppily mushroom or just remain a .22 caliber icepick until it's energy was expended.
You speak as if an ice pick in the chest is something that improve ones health or mobility.
One of the Marine in my battalion was killed outside Fallujah when a small piece of frag (like quite a bit smaller than 5.56 round) hit in the neck and severed the artery. The Doc just couldn't stop the bleeding despite this being a sub ice pick sized wound.
People get too wrapped around the axles when it comes to fragmentation, it is nice when it happens but even without it a hole in the chest or head is a life altering event and doesn't make the recipient more combat effective.
mkmckinley
01-02-12, 07:52
Effective range is the maximum range at which a soldier might reasonably expect to hit his target. I think instead of fixating on barrel length a great er emphasis should be put on range estimation, training, and marksmanship. Most misses at common combat distances are software related.
Eurodriver
01-02-12, 07:59
You speak as if an ice pick in the chest is something that improve ones health or mobility.
One of the Marine in my battalion was killed outside Fallujah when a small piece of frag (like quite a bit smaller than 5.56 round) hit in the neck and severed the artery. The Doc just couldn't stop the bleeding despite this being a sub ice pick sized wound.
People get too wrapped around the axles when it comes to fragmentation, it is nice when it happens but even without it a hole in the chest or head is a life altering event and doesn't make the recipient more combat effective.
What also must be remembered is that a guy 600 yards away (especially some Ali Baba with an AK) is significantly less dangerous than one at 50 yards.
I don't know very many BAMF's that can take a non fragmenting 62gr round at 1400 FPS and still engage targets 600 yards away.
What also must be remembered is that a guy 600 yards away (especially some Ali Baba with an AK) is significantly less dangerous than one at 50 yards.
I don't know very many BAMF's that can take a non fragmenting 62gr round at 1400 FPS and still engage targets 600 yards away.
this is just it. At close range, fragging, expansion is almost necessary. Past 400yds or so, its luxury. As for the 22lr comparison, wouldnt 5.56 still tumble causing a better wound track than a .22lr? Shoot, take cover, wait for him to bleed out. Hes not gonna run 500yds and bunker your ass with a .224" hole in his heart, especially if you put a couple holes in em. At 600yds im pretty sure a 10"barrel and 20" barrel produce wound tracts similar enough to be considered the same.
As for the 22lr comparison, wouldnt 5.56 still tumble causing a better wound track than a .22lr?
Anyone making a 22LR comparison is completely clueless. The two projectiles couldn't be more different.
Anyone making a 22LR comparison is completely clueless. The two projectiles couldn't be more different.
Also stating this as well...
At 600yds im pretty sure a 10"barrel and 20" barrel produce wound tracts similar enough to be considered the same.
Guess people don't quite know simple high school physics these days.
Also stating this as well...
Guess people don't quite know simple high school physics these days.
Thats a fun remark, but ignorant and irrelevent.
Neither projectile will frag, so isnt hydrostatic shock gonna be the only difference? Has anyone shot gel at 600yds before? Maybe doc roberts or someone who knows for sure can prove me wrong. How much more shock is there gonna be from a 20" barrel and how much of a difference will it really make. I love learning so please explain.
edit, I was speculating, which I shouldnt have done... Guess I should have said "at 600yds or so, what difference will there be between a 10" and 20" barrel, when dealing with the effect of a round on a living target." My guess is that the difference will be negligable.
You speak as if an ice pick in the chest is something that improve ones health or mobility.Hard way to learn but thanks for speaking the truth about this shit.
Kickin-Ewoks
01-04-12, 16:14
Thats a fun remark, but ignorant and irrelevent.
Neither projectile will frag, so isnt hydrostatic shock gonna be the only difference? Has anyone shot gel at 600yds before? Maybe doc roberts or someone who knows for sure can prove me wrong. How much more shock is there gonna be from a 20" barrel and how much of a difference will it really make. I love learning so please explain.
edit, I was speculating, which I shouldnt have done... Guess I should have said "at 600yds or so, what difference will there be between a 10" and 20" barrel, when dealing with the effect of a round on a living target." My guess is that the difference will be negligable.
Check out the results from the experiment linked below. The gentleman used a bolt action .223 rifle with a 22'' barrel, he cut 1'' increments off the barrel, to 10", and then tested the muzzle velocities at each increment. The difference between a 16" barrel and 10 inch barrel averaged 300 fps. Throughout the whole process the accuracy of 5 shot groups at a 100 yards only varied by 0.2".
The senior staff here enlightened me to this myth in a different thread, and I have found a ton of information confirming their statements. If you can't take their word for it here is some "internet data" for you.
If your rifle is intended for a defensive/offensive purpose then I can't think of a good reason not to go with a shorter, lighter barrel. I wouldn't want to be within 1000 yards of anyone shooting an SBR at me.
http://www.accuratereloading.com/223sb.html
Reference
N.A. (May, 2001). The Effects of Reducing Barrel Length on Velocity and Accuracy in the 223 Remington.
Retrieved January 4, 2012, from http://www.accuratereloading.com/223sb.html.
You speak as if an ice pick in the chest is something that improve ones health or mobility.
One of the Marine in my battalion was killed outside Fallujah when a small piece of frag (like quite a bit smaller than 5.56 round) hit in the neck and severed the artery. The Doc just couldn't stop the bleeding despite this being a sub ice pick sized wound.
People get too wrapped around the axles when it comes to fragmentation, it is nice when it happens but even without it a hole in the chest or head is a life altering event and doesn't make the recipient more combat effective.
When did I say anything like that? Bullets are designed to be accurate and hit the target, then have a specific terminal effect. Depending on it's speed at impact a bullet will either mushroom properly, fragment properly, or it won't. The farther you get from the muzzle, the slower it's going to travel and at some point the minimum required velocity for fragmentation is lost, same with mushrooming. Even if it is a sloppy mushroom or only fragments into 2 or 3 pieces, or even if it icepicks someone - it's still quite lethal, don't put words in my mouth. Icepicking is deadly, but not as rapidly incapacitating as an unobstructed fragmentation, or tripling the size of the permanent cavity with a well defined mushroom.
A while back I was interested in fragmentation and so I read alot of what DocGKR and Molon posted on the subject. Molon's estimated fragmentation threshold for M855 and M193 was both 2700 feet per second. That means these are the fragmentation distances for the corresponding barrel lengths for M855 and M193:
20" - 135 yards
18" - 120 yards
16" - 105 yards
14.5 - 75 yards
For 75gr TAP I have the following for fragmentation:
20" - 230 yards
16" - 185 yards
14.5" - 150 yards
10.5" - 48 yards
Doc Roberts posts led me to believe that yes fragmentation is a great bonus but not something that should be counted on, especially with short barreled rifles or longer engagement distances. So I started reading about mushrooming loads with a focus on intermediate barrier penetration. So as I stated before until someone shows me numbers to the contrary, I don't know of any load out there that will perform as it is marketed when impacting a target at 500-800 yards. Fragmentation may still occur, mushrooming may still occur, but it will not occur reliably like it would at an engagement range of 100-200 meters.
When shooting at longer distances the important part is HITTING your target which is why I said that I would settle for any hits at 500-800 yards. Thankfully "effective range" is something that is defined for us by the military but you will notice that alot of other people have differing ideas. If you can hit then you can fight.
Check out the results from the experiment linked below. The gentleman used a bolt action .223 rifle with a 22'' barrel, he cut 1'' increments off the barrel, to 10", and then tested the muzzle velocities at each increment. The difference between a 16" barrel and 10 inch barrel averaged 300 fps. Throughout the whole process the accuracy of 5 shot groups at a 100 yards only varied by 0.2".
The senior staff here enlightened me to this myth in a different thread, and I have found a ton of information confirming their statements. If you can't take their word for it here is some "internet data" for you.
If your rifle is intended for a defensive/offensive purpose then I can't think of a good reason not to go with a shorter, lighter barrel. I wouldn't want to be within 1000 yards of anyone shooting an SBR at me.
http://www.accuratereloading.com/223sb.html
Reference
N.A. (May, 2001). The Effects of Reducing Barrel Length on Velocity and Accuracy in the 223 Remington.
Retrieved January 4, 2012, from http://www.accuratereloading.com/223sb.html.
I wonder if he SBR'd it... ha.
Eurodriver
01-04-12, 16:50
I am heading out tomorrow to try some hits with my 12.5" SBR at 565 yards on an 8" gong. Works out to be around 1.40 MOA.
I won't be able to get video (public range) but I'll have my word and some pictures to prove that I was at least out there trying ;)
I'll also shoot for groups at 300 with M855, M193, Hornady 75gr and 53gr.
Bullets are designed to be accurate and hit the target, then have a specific terminal effect.I think you are both saying similar things, i.e. 5.56 hits can still be very very dangerous at intermediate ranges. He was just making sure you weren't too wrapped up in the "terminal effect" and discounting the round. You certainly are not and it was very clear so from your posts afterwards. Just that first one caused the miscommunication, I unfortunately read it the same way he did.
I think you are both saying similar things, i.e. 5.56 hits can still be very very dangerous at intermediate ranges. He was just making sure you weren't too wrapped up in the "terminal effect" and discounting the round. You certainly are not and it was very clear so from your posts afterwards. Just that first one caused the miscommunication, I unfortunately read it the same way he did.
That's exactly it - being able to make the hit is going to be the most relevant part, and I think the safest conclusion that can be drawn is that going the SBR route with a rifle doesn't cause the terminal effectiveness beyond an arbitrary radius to disappear in a puff of internet logic.
going the SBR route with a rifle doesn't cause the terminal effectiveness beyond an arbitrary radius to disappear in a puff of internet logic.
:lol: You're going to offend the Frag Fags!!!
I love learning so please explain.
Then stop posting here, get thee to the Terminal Ballistics subforum, and get reading. You have some fairly glaring info gaps that can be seen to by researching that subforum.
The use of the phrase "hydrostatic shock" ( :rolleyes: ) is gigantic indicator that you have some reading to do before you come back and try again.
Also, calling out another member over an imaginary "ignorant and irrelevant" statement (for having the temerity of merely pointing out the facts of your ignorance regarding simple physics that you should have been taught by 10th grade...) sure as shit isn't helping you any.
Also, find a way to get past the idea that recognized experts in their field need to prove you wrong. It is, in fact, the other way around, and you're not gonna do that in your current state, if ever.
Also, stop guessing. Nobody cares what your guess happens to be, in the face of that which is verifiable.
Also, if you love learning so much, start putting things in the form of questions, instead of statements.
Scoot.
jonconsiglio
01-05-12, 11:18
As for the questions posted about 600 yards and gelatin, instead of assuming and making guesses, Google it. If the answers aren't readily available, go back to the first page where I posted a few times with frag ranges of different ammo and velocities from different barrel length (just to save you the effort of a second google search).
Plug those into a ballistic calculator and you'll start to see at what point different loads will no longer have a high enough velocity to damage tissue during the secondary cavitation. There's a threshold where the expansion of tissue is no longer fast enough to create a a wound cavity and you're then left with only the tissue damage caused by the projectile itself.
It's pretty easy shit to research and understand as long as you first understand the difference between handgun and rifle projectiles and how the velocity comes into play.
Eurodriver
01-05-12, 17:14
The setup: BCM 12.5" SS upper with free floating barrel and DD OmegaX 7" rail. I used a grippod for front support (No, I don't keep it on there) and a sandbag for a rear rest. I actually shot from the prone, but this is the only pic i have of the setup.
http://i42.tinypic.com/w7znmq.jpg
What I was shooting at: Paper targets at 300 and 565, and (2) 8" steel gongs at 565 (Not labeled)
http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/8889/targetsx.jpg
Now, normally I do all of my shooting with M855 because thats what I have for SHTF...but I was having a really shitty time trying to hit anything at 565 yards with the sustained 15mph winds (25mph gusts) we were having today. The inconsistency of this ammunition really showed with the winds as bad as they were. Groups at 300 were nothing to write home about, about 12". Still, 4 MOA with M855 at 300 yards is respectable...
The winds presented a problem, because I don't consider a 3 or even a 5 shot group a "group" at all. I don't even like to adjust my zero off a 3 shot group because you have no idea if the next 7 shots will be higher, lower, etc. I consider 10 shot groups a minimum for both judging precision and assessing an accurate zero.
With that said, I only had one box of Hornady 75gr ammunition. Twenty rounds. I had to confirm my zero was good at 100 with 5 rounds which left (2) 5-round groups at 300 and (1) 5 round group at 565. Unfortunately, zeroing took 8 rounds. I was shooting at the bottom target and the rounds were going below the entire target into the dirt. It took 2 rounds before I figured out what was even going on.
Here are the results, I didn't measure but I'm guessing 1.25 MOA max. They look a shade under 4".
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/337/300y2.jpg
http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/3993/300ye.jpg
Again, I consider 3 shot groups worthless but it is what it is. For reference the blue man is 14" wide.
http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/5889/target3hits.jpg
Trying to zero my SCAR at 300...looks like I need to adjust a little left.
http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/6418/zeroscar.jpg
The SCAR 17 really impressed me at 565 as well. With Federal M80 ammunition I nailed the gong about 1/4 rounds. 8" at 565 yards works out to about 1.40 MOA. Not bad.
Optics used were 4x ACOGs.
Eurodriver
01-05-12, 17:18
Speaking of 53gr Superperformance from Hornady.
Holy shit. I fired 5 rounds and the drop was so minimal I was shooting OVER the target at 565 yards! I have 15 left because I didn't want to waste it all if I couldn't figure out where it was going but I couldn't believe drop would be affected like that.
I would say that there was a solid 20" less drop with the 53gr than the 75gr.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.