Question to real ‘pipe-hitters’ ‘snake-eaters’ etc-true effective range of AR?

[utahjeepr]

As has been said, there is a long list of variables involved in making effective hits on "light/medium game" at range. The further out you go the less those combined variables favor the shooter. Equipment selection, preparation, skill, assistance, and luck/chance can all effect those variables. Ballistics are one thing, "applied ballistics" is a different animal altogether.

[nick84]

I had a friend who knew a guy whose roommate's dog hooked up with a girl whose cousin knew a guy in Delta who once said hi to her and she always said... " can you hit your target at 800, bro? That's the first question."


But for real. You don't need credentialed veterans to answer this question. Ballistics charts and objective self-awareness have the answer.

[C-grunt]

I completely agree with the guys saying that actually hitting dudes out past a couple hundred meters is really hard. The only reason I have my long shot is I was in an overwatch position and the bad guys were shooting at the rest of my platoon who were in a completely opposite direction as me. He was utilizing cover and concealment from my guys he was shooting at but never saw me. So he was basically standing still in the open for me. But once I dropped him, my team leader (using a M4 and Aimpoint) opened up on the rest, they all scattered and started using cover and concealment against use. We sent a couple dozen more rounds into their area but it's unlikely we actually hit anyone else. That firefight resulted in 4 enemy dead, but the other 3 were probably not from me or my team leader.

I always hear guys talking about how we need a new main rifle cartridge because of the 5.56 short range. We need to "take back the infantry half kilometer" or whatever that paper said. I maintain that our problem with killing badguys at 300+ meters is not getting hits. In my opinion that comes from poor marksmanship and the fact that badguys tend not to stand around in the open. The advancement in optics has made and will make a much bigger difference in longer range performance than a switch to a bigger cartridge that will be harder for the average infantryman to shoot well.

Now switching because of armor penetration needs is a different discussion.

[1168]

I maintain that our problem with killing badguys at 300+ meters is not getting hits.

This is spot on, along with the rest of what you said.

[CRAMBONE]

That’s bogus. I was talking to a special ops Instagram guy. He’s salty at the moment that a Medal of Honor recipient called him out for being a nerd, but that’s a separate issue. Anyway, he said be was special forces USMC green beret and 5.56 deflected off blades of grass.

So 400m kills with an M4? No way!

Dude, I thought you were dead.

[crusader377]

I'm a bit more nuanced on the effective range of the AR chambered in 5.56. I believe the effective range is around 550M-600M. However, the AR platform is optimized for engagements in the 0-300M range which 90% of infantry combat in the last 100+ years has taken place at ranges under 300M. Can the AR make hits beyond 600M? Absolutely! However is it the best weapon for engagements over 600M? No.

[Failure2Stop]

I've noticed an odd phenomenon in which folks that are trained and practiced on long-range shooting will tend to out-perform those that are not when shooting past 300.
Considering that Army doctrine and training effectively stops at 300 meters, and that not every soldier is an "expert" rifleman, it's not terribly surprising that 300 becomes their perceived limit of effectiveness.

[derek45]

You don't need to be Chuck Norris to clang steel at 600 yards with a 5.56 rifle.

Hell....there's an entire sport called service rifle that does it regularly . . . .with iron sights

just shoot

[Grendelshooter]

I've noticed an odd phenomenon in which folks that are trained and practiced on long-range shooting will tend to out-perform those that are not when shooting past 300.
Considering that Army doctrine and training effectively stops at 300 meters, and that not every soldier is an "expert" rifleman, it's not terribly surprising that 300 becomes their perceived limit of effectiveness.

I think ya hit on it.
Longest shot I’ve taken with a 5.56 load is 853 yards. Hit the rock I was aiming for, and did it with a fair amount of repeatability. From prone with bipod not really terribly difficult to do in the conditions I had. Same results with single loaded

So I see people talking about 5.56 being limited to 300 meters and not being a “600 yard gun” kinda makes me scratch my head, but if one has never trained past 300 yards how would they know?

[AndyLate]

The intrinsic problem with the question is defining "effective".

Do we consider the maximum effective range to be the range a skilled marksman can hit a man-sized target 10 of 10 times, the range an "average" Soldier/Marine can hit the same target 8 of 10 times, the range the projectile will achieve 10" of penetration in ballistic gelatin, or _______?

Andy