Average AR15 effective range.

I just wanted to clear up the actual military definitions. A few key points:

Effective section fire includes 6x riflemen and 2x C9 machine guns with an effective range (doctrinal) of 600m. So its not really what we are discussing here, just clearing up the definition.

Good riflemen can certainly get good hits out to ~550m even with issue C77, C7A2s and C79s. Longshot is correct the only thing limiting the range here is the training of the shooter.

The tactical leash on when people open up is the open fire policy. If idiots start shooting before they can realistically hit or positively ID a target its a problem. Now you've just given away your position and may not yet be able to effectively engage. A huge limiting factor here is the ability of the section (and the resources/optics within it) to get PID. Big difference between what can the gun do physically on a KD range and the section in battle.
 
Longshot said:
I have never once seen a C77 round tumble out to 500m UNLESS it hit the berm in front of the target first.... all went straight through with no tumbling.Same for C9's.
Click to expand...

In my time I saw three or so guns that were worn or somehow buggered...assuming it wasn't the ammo. These were keyholing inside 200m. - but again, something outside of the norm for sure.

Longshot said:
The lower has zero effect on the accuracy of a C7.All it is is a trigger.
Click to expand...
In principle I agree. However, in practice this is not the case all of the time.
As an example, if guys are holding onto the magwell with their support hand and cupping the rear handguard ring it can mean there is sufficient play left over within the upper when the hammer strikes. It's compounded by a gritty, sh!tty trigger, pronounced slob between the two halves and longer ranges. Again, this comes down to the nut behind the trigger as you say.

Longshot said:
The grouping capacity of a 20 inch AR with a regular issue type barrel at 100m is 2-5 inches.The guns are not capable of anything better due to thier design.
Click to expand...

C77 is pretty damned good, but I'd like to hear your tune after you've spent some quality time with some true match-quality ammo and your selected C7s. I think the mechanical accuracy on average exceeds 2-5 inches, and a few are doing much better than the average...;) jmho based on what I've seen.
 
well I canvased our company marksmen, gun enthousists, and CFSAC team members and a couple senior NCO's; The C77 round does start to tumble as little as 400 meters out, at 600 the magority are tumbling. I though I was the odd man out with a possibly unique experience on this happening to me. But confirming with active shooters and senior military members that run ranges and have been in the infantry since the inception of the riffle has shown me that my statements on tumble are indead correct.
You might get difrrent results with a civilian ammo and Ar15 but our service riffle has these charicteristics.

Accuracy at range: Our CFSAC guys said they can hit 5 inch groups at 500m with a high power scope. A scope that is only afforded to designated marksmen and shooting team members. 600 is unrealistic for a standard C7A2 because the power of the optics is not great enough; the post in the elcan will obscure a man sized target, even at 300 the top of the post dominates the figure 11 target. Not only that but the zero on the elcan c79 is not reliable enough for presion shooting at that range. Hence one of the reasons why we use "volley fire".

For the last time, when you have a worn out lower reciever that slops around due to 1/16" play around the take down pins, it will affect accuracy. Since consistantcy is a magor part of accuracy (the ability to put rounds close togeather) when the upper reciver can bouce around on the riffle it might be shooting "straight" but strait in slightly difrent derections ever time you fire. Combined with the fact that the bolt enters the lower reciever via the buffer tube having them tight togeather makes a huge difrence in achiving tight groupings.

Effectivness of the round at range. It is not considered "effective" past 600 at a live target because its not. Even at 600 guys can take a hit and keep trucking. Hit does not mean out of the fight. A broken rib and a laceration on the chest hurts but is far from fatal, even dabilitating on a adrenilan filled fighter. At 600 guys get hit in the leg and limp away on there own power. And when you get guys high on drugs like in afghanistan, we have seen guys get an arm blown off with a 25mm HEIT round, pick up their arm, put in in the crook of there remaining arm and keep shooting at us.
So the 5.56 round is not effective out to 600 against a personal target unless you have siffecient amount of rounds going down range, AKA a C9 LMG or a section of troops.

Anything else I should cover or does anyone else want to pick at my job knowlage and proffesion?.
 
Last edited:
It is CFSAC (Canadian Forces Small Arms Concentration).

Been going to them for a few years now.

Your friends on the LFWA team are going to get to know me and their rifles very well over the next few months.
 
LordEvilPepper said:
Anything else I should cover or does anyone else want to pick at my job knowlage and proffesion?.
Click to expand...

You talked to some LFWA CFSAC team members eh? I think I know a few of them. Sounds like you have a solid grasp of second hand information there.:rolleyes: Tell you what, instead of spreading other peoples questionable BS get some experience yourself. If you ever get a chance to shoot at 500m or shoot C9 at 600m go check the holes in the target afterwards. They'll be overwhemingly round, not keyhole shaped.

You're not the only guy on the board with few years in the army killer, so how about not speaking for "our" profession until you start making sense.
 
well I canvased our company marksmen, gun enthousists, and CFSAC team members and a couple senior NCO's; The C77 round does start to tumble as little as 400 meters out, at 600 the magority are tumbling.
Click to expand...

I am shocked. I can assure you none of the rounds I shoot have ever tumbled at 400 meters. Whats wrong with the C77 round? Does it go sub sonic too quickly?

Accuracy at range: Our CFSAC guys said they can hit 5 inch groups at 500m with a high power scope. A scope that is only afforded to designated marksmen and shooting team members. 600 is unrealistic for a standard C7A2 because the power of the optics is not great enough
Click to expand...

High Power shooters down south shoot out to 600 yards with irons everyday with excellent results.


149_4953_900px.jpg
 
600m is unrealistic for someone who doesn't have the skill or training. Just because it's hard for you, or you haven't done it doesn't mean that it can't be done.

1/16" slop between receivers? or is it the
When I twisted the riffle I could get a 3/32 gap between the recievers
Click to expand...
from the last page?

Did you actually measure the gap, or are you merely guestimating?

Where did you measure the gap?

In order to get 1/16" of play between the receivers, you'd have to have 1/32" (or .03125") of wear on both of the pins. That would be equal to 12% of the surface being worn off.

I won't say that's impossible, but it's rather unlikely. I've seen loose and sloppy rifles before, but never to that extent. I've "paper patched" a loose AR before, and fit 3-4 thicknesses of paper between the upper and lower, so that'd be 0.010"-ish, to a TIGHT fit, so I would say that slop of that magnitude would be reasonable...but still, the overall effect is minimal.

I detect someone talking based on other people's experience, rather than their own, with a level of consistency that's lacking page to page....hmmmmm....

NS
 
My own rifle had a 3/32 gap when "twisted" . I could get a knife blade from a gerber fully in one side and stick out the other. The 1/16 was a geuss at the actual wear on the pins. And yes you could cause a stopage just by twisting a bit when you held the riffle. In improvised positions it realy was a downer gettig stopages every couple of rounds.
My shooting at 400+ was done at frontinac farm. I had 2 or 3 out of 30 starting to woble giving me oval holes. It was not done with the bad C7 but with a new 89 model.
 
LordEvilPepper said:
well I canvased our company marksmen, gun enthousists, and CFSAC team members and a couple senior NCO's; The C77 round does start to tumble as little as 400 meters out, at 600 the magority are tumbling. I though I was the odd man out with a possibly unique experience on this happening to me. But confirming with active shooters and senior military members that run ranges and have been in the infantry since the inception of the riffle has shown me that my statements on tumble are indead correct.
You might get difrrent results with a civilian ammo and Ar15 but our service riffle has these charicteristics.
Click to expand...
Wrong.If your company rifles are doing this they should be sent for a serious working over.Tumbling rounds IS NOT a characteristic of the C7 OR C77 ammunition.Anyone who spread this information to you is well uninformed and needs a lesson or two themselves.Strangely enough I find this kind of info spread mainly from guys "that have been in the infantry since the inception of the riffle."Generally they have no idea what they are talking about.

LordEvilPepper said:
Accuracy at range: Our CFSAC guys said they can hit 5 inch groups at 500m with a high power scope. A scope that is only afforded to designated marksmen and shooting team members. 600 is unrealistic for a standard C7A2 because the power of the optics is not great enough; the post in the elcan will obscure a man sized target, even at 300 the top of the post dominates the figure 11 target. Not only that but the zero on the elcan c79 is not reliable enough for presion shooting at that range. Hence one of the reasons why we use "volley fire".
Click to expand...
Oh boy where to start.Fire enough shot and some will go into 5 inches.Consistantly?Highly doubt it.What high power scope are you talking about anyways that is only for DM and shooting team guys?I've been to a lot of CFSACs and never seen anything other than Elcans,Unertals on the C3 and S+B PM2 on the C14.There isn't one.600 is not unrealistic for the C7 weapon system.It's unrealistic for an untrained shooter who keeps being told that the effective range is 300m by someone who has no idea.
When was the last time you looked through and Elcan?If yours is obscuring a fig11 at 300m, I ask you why you are aiming for the top of his head?


LordEvilPepper said:
For the last time, when you have a worn out lower reciever that slops around due to 1/16" play around the take down pins, it will affect accuracy. Since consistantcy is a magor part of accuracy (the ability to put rounds close togeather) when the upper reciver can bouce around on the riffle it might be shooting "straight" but strait in slightly difrent derections ever time you fire. Combined with the fact that the bolt enters the lower reciever via the buffer tube having them tight togeather makes a huge difrence in achiving tight groupings.
Click to expand...
Wrong again."when the upper reciver can bouce around on the riffle it might be shooting "straight" but strait in slightly difrent derections ever time you fire." The upper only sits on top of the receiver.It doesn't have to be seated exactly the same every time because the sights are attached to it only.As long as the sights are aligned correctly it doesn't matter what the lower is doing.The bolt coming from the buffer has zero to do with it because once that round is driven home into the chamber the bolt sits only in the upper.Buffer tube alignment is a moot point.Zero effect.

LordEvilPepper said:
Effectivness of the round at range. It is not considered "effective" past 600 at a live target because its not.
Click to expand...
Oh thats why!I was wonder why it isn't effective past 600m.Thanks for clearing that up with the best reasoning I've ever heard.



LordEvilPepper said:
Even at 600 guys can take a hit and keep trucking. Hit does not mean out of the fight. A broken rib and a laceration on the chest hurts but is far from fatal, even dabilitating on a adrenilan filled fighter. At 600 guys get hit in the leg and limp away on there own power. And when you get guys high on drugs like in afghanistan, we have seen guys get an arm blown off with a 25mm HEIT round, pick up their arm, put in in the crook of there remaining arm and keep shooting at us.
Click to expand...
Wow you don't hit him center of mass and he keeps going?Who woulda figured?The key to dropping a guy at 600m is to hit him in the vitals.NOT break a rib,lacerate a chest, hit him in the arm or the leg.

LordEvilPepper said:
So the 5.56 round is not effective out to 600 against a personal target unless you have siffecient amount of rounds going through his vitals AKA from a guy that can actually shoot .
Click to expand...
Fixed it for you.


LordEvilPepper said:
Anything else I should cover or does anyone else want to pick at my job knowlage and proffesion?.
Click to expand...

Playing puffy chest here just makes you look more silly.Your "knowlage" of your profession may be fine however your knowledge of other things needs some remedial training.It's actually not your fault because misinformation about marksmanship and what is possible with the C7 and ammo is rampant in th CF.It's either what you've been taught OR it's something you picked up off the internet.
You have no idea how many other folks in your profession are reading this and laughing.I'm one of them.But I obviously don't count because I'm just a reservist.
 
greentips said:
To train everyone to confidently engage at 600m is not possible. If DMR is a possibility,we can train the people who needs to do so with the skill. However, commanders need to know to utilize this capability.
Click to expand...
Well I guess they have to figure out whether its worth having soldiers that can dominate a 1km+ circle or a soldier that can kind of dominate a 600m circle like we have for the most part now.I'm not sure what kind of commander wouldn't want that.
We had trained soldiers who had never fired beyond 300m making 86% first round hits at 500m in a clinic out west here.It took a little over 1 day to make it happen.
It is possible but folks need to see the importance.
 
Longshot said:
Well I guess they have to figure out whether its worth having soldiers that can dominate a 1km+ circle or a soldier that can kind of dominate a 600m circle like we have for the most part now.I'm not sure what kind of commander wouldn't want that.
We had trained soldiers who had never fired beyond 300m making 86% first round hits at 500m in a clinic out west here.It took a little over 1 day to make it happen.
It is possible but folks need to see the importance.
Click to expand...

The main issue is that everyone can be trained to fire at 300m because it is a point and shoot range for the 556. Make a mistake in range estimation or a mild wind is blowng, no big deal - it will hit a man sized target somewhere. all one needs is good basic marksmanship skill.

Starting from 300m and up, an individual rifleman will need more than just basic marksmanship skill to be successful - environmental observation skill, range estimation, some ideas of the relationship of these factors and external ballistic, such that he/she can adjust fire intelligently.

To train someone to shoot within 300m is quite easy because shooting at KD will be good enough. When we start moving beyond 300m, the other skills are getting more and more importance. To make effective rifleman beyond 300m, we need to conduct much more field range, not just KD. KD is a good exercise to reinforce basic marksmanship skill and establish a reference for wind effect, but we need to practice ranging and adjusting fire.

Of course, if we do not even shoot enough KD at 500, we probably cannot progress to field fire at 500 and up.
 
you do relize what "dominate" means in this context. Obscure anything it is placed over. since the area most shot for (because you can actualy see it at range) on the figure 11 is just below the head area around the webing of the for finger and thumb on the hand, the next most shot at point is the chin. the post blocks the view of the target below were you are aiming at 300m. This makes it very hard to correct your aim if you are hitting low as you do not see the splash.
f-11.jpg


The reason I poked at the reserves earlier is because Information passed on by many NCO's was internet based or opion oriented. In the reg force, if a question arises... we hop on the Dwan and look it up in the PAMS. hell we have full set of current PAM's in our range boxes. I'm not saying there arn't good guys in the reserves, but lets face it, many of the guys that make it into high ranks are there because they have time to take the courses. They have time to take the course because 1) they have a good job that lets them take time off or 2)..the more comman case, they have no life and are mo bums, living from class B contract to class B contract. On TFA 2008 we had 2 out of 4 reserve Sgt's fired for incompitance, the Pl WO was banned from the CP unless he had work do do, as well as "highly discouraged" from going outside the wire after he decided that setting up a camera on a tripod was more inportant then cordon at an IED strike.

Once again THERE ARE GOOD PEOPLE IN THE RESERVES, so don't take this personaly if you are one of them.

Why does everyone asume that because I can't shoot at 600m with a C7 I believe nobody can? I never said you can't hit at 600m i said the round is ineffective at that range for the purpose of reliably downing a target.
honestly if you can hit at 600m with iron sights you have my kudo's... because at 600m I cant even see the target other then as a small black blob with a 3.4power optic. With the c9 for the PWT3 they put three fig11 targets next to each other. and your not expected to hit with that many rounds in order to pass.

As for others in the job laughing, everyone I showed this to at work laughed at many of your opinions. This includes our CFSAC shooters.
 
Really?Like the ones who are about to get a big shocker when they get to CFSAC for the first time?There's a surprise.
Tell me what was it that I said that they laughed at?If it was the part where I disproved your silly second hand info then I don't blame them for laughing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom