Effective Range

[1feral1]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[Fusaki]

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]

....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]

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]

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]

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]

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

I <3 this website for this reason

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]

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]

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. 

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.

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]

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]

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]

???

 

[SupersonicMax]

???

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

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.