Average AR15 effective range.

"Bullet yaw on impact" range is down in the sub 150m range for many loadings with a 16" barrel. This effect drops off dramatically with shorter barrels. Check it out, these are M193:

wund5.jpg


Based on my research, you can expect fragmentation out to ~150m with a 16" barrel using 55gr m193, and out to ~95m with m855. Fragmentation range with a 11.5" barrel using heavier rounds like m855 may be as low as ~15m! Of course, this depends entirely on bullet design and will not be the same for other types, but it gives you a pretty good idea of the actual effective range of the round. Outside of fragmentation range, you are just making round .22cal holes.

http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/term_fragrange.html


Fancy ammo definitely helps. Compare those m193 pics to this gel test of 75gr .223 TAP, which is what I have in my home defense mag:

SAMMI_pressure_Hornady_75_gel_shot_from_16_inch_barrel.jpg


At the same speed, m193 (which is more likely to fragment than m855) only makes 3-4 chunks.
 
My completely untested, uninformed, no practical experience answer is 800m.

That's my gut feeling for maximum effective range. I know I've seen shows where AMU guys easily shoot them out to 600y, with no bipods or rests.
 
Many years ago a Vandoo CSM shot a Serb in FYR at 893m with a C7A1 using C77 ammo.

Yes it took more than 1 rd to hit - but the hit he got was effective.
 
KevinB said:
Many years ago a Vandoo CSM shot a Serb in FYR at 893m with a C7A1 using C77 ammo.

Yes it took more than 1 rd to hit - but the hit he got was effective.
Click to expand...

Hitting all that gastro-intestinal slivovitz fumes must have really sparked up some spectacular results:rolleyes:.
 
tiriaq said:
Just a thought - I am sure that any enemy capturing a US soldier carrying hollowpoint ammunition is going to be impressed by the determination that the hollow point is there for manufacturing, rather than lethality purposes.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that anyone likely to catch themselves a US soldier these days has never heard of any sort of law of war.

If the first one don't work, keep on shooting!
 
Troop "The C9 has a longer effective range because the bullet goes faster than with a C7"
Me "Why does the bullet go faster?"
Troop "Because the the C9 is bigger"

This is what he had been told by an instructor, and with the firearms vacuum most soldiers operate in it made sense to him.
 
Gunnerlove said:
Troop "The C9 has a longer effective range because the bullet goes faster than with a C7"
Me "Why does the bullet go faster?"
Troop "Because the the C9 is bigger"
This is what he had been told by an instructor, and with the firearms vacuum most soldiers operate in it made sense to him.
Click to expand...
So that explains all the crap I see strapped onto people's ARs at the range that make them weigh a ton. I always wondered about the logic and now I know. :) Thanks GL!
 
With the service riffle I use for a living you see tumbling after 400m. With the C9 a good chunk of the rounds hit sideways at 600. 5.56 FMJ 55 grain is not a long distance round it was never ment to be.
As for the soldier and the C9, was he a reservist or just stupid? Anyone who paid attention on basic knows why the effective range is longer. And if his NCO told him diffrent hes a retard as well.
 
I have shot the C7A1 in several competitions out to 500m and have had no problems with the rounds tumbling. Our ORA, and Bisley shooters have shot @ 500 for years and never have any problems either.
 
LordEvilPepper said:
With the service riffle I use for a living you see tumbling after 400m. With the C9 a good chunk of the rounds hit sideways at 600. 5.56 FMJ 55 grain is not a long distance round it was never ment to be.
Click to expand...

Not to split hairs but C77 is 62 gr. -you know that, just saying.

As to the tumbling, it is true in different rifles and MGs tumbling can happen prior to when it is predicted to do so - a product of the condition of the barrel in most cases.
 
When I say 400m, I mean CAN start to tumble at 400m

honestly my swiss arms hasn't had an issue either when I shot it out to 475, but every C7 I have been issued (in the reg force) has been terible. to many recruits scraping the crown with a cleaning rod to pass inspection.

The C7 A2 riffle Iused for TFA 2008 was in such bad shape I could cause it to jam by twisting (side to side) the forward grip while the riffle was seated in my shoulder. When I twisted the riffle I could get a 3/32 gap between the recievers The bolt Had a "C" on it meaning it was one of the original issue to the CF and It was so worn that I kept having to get the gass rings replaced because as soon as the broke in I got gas stopages. The gun techs eventualy gave me a new bolt.
 
LordEvilPepper said:
When I say 400m, I mean CAN start to tumble at 400m

honestly my swiss arms hasn't had an issue either when I shot it out to 475, but every C7 I have been issued (in the reg force) has been terible. to many recruits scraping the crown with a cleaning rod to pass inspection.

The C7 A2 riffle Iused for TFA 2008 was in such bad shape I could cause it to jam by twisting (side to side) the forward grip while the riffle was seated in my shoulder. When I twisted the riffle I could get a 3/32 gap between the recievers The bolt Had a "C" on it meaning it was one of the original issue to the CF and It was so worn that I kept having to get the gass rings replaced because as soon as the broke in I got gas stopages. The gun techs eventualy gave me a new bolt.
Click to expand...

Then you are commenting on defective rifles. Not the .223/5.56 round . ;)
 
Fair enough.
But I digress, the C7 is listed as a 400m effective range indiidualy (300 M in some pams, which is more on par with what you will actualy get out of an avrage service riffle).

The bullet we use in our army might be able to reach out and touch at 800m, but I have seen enough guys limp/crawl, or outright run away from a hit at 400-500m to call it "effective" past 300 from a repition fire riffle.
 
LordEvilPepper said:
Fair enough.
But I digress, the C7 is listed as a 400m effective range indiidualy (300 M in some pams, which is more on par with what you will actualy get out of an avrage service riffle).

The bullet we use in our army might be able to reach out and touch at 800m, but I have seen enough guys limp/crawl, or outright run away from a hit at 400-500m to call it "effective" past 300 from a repition fire riffle.
Click to expand...

Shot placement is key.
 
Never understood this shot placement jazz, maybe in a self-defence situation but not in a real wartime situation.

Everyone I've talked to in past wars says most of the time you never have time to properly aim and shoot Anyone who stuck their head up more than 3 seconds when in a full engagement usually lost that head. Unless the enemy is for whatever reason standing in the open, you really should never have more than a running guy to shoot at, or maybe an arm, half a head etc. Like I've heard, if under fire you find yourself in a proper shooting position, you are not utilizing proper cover...

When there's 10000 guys shooting at your 10000 guys, 99% of everyone is simply winging shots at each other, nobody is stupid enough to stick their head out to aim for the precise long distance shot against that guy prone in a ravine with half his head sticking out half obscurred by ferns and bushes.

But war seems small scale close range engagements now, so maybe people do have time to pick out a flies left eye at 300 yards while under fire. But then again, this IS the internet.
 
I think the "effective" term is the real sticking point in this conversation. My effective obviously differs from your avrage shooter. So what is effective to you?

-disired accuracy at range
-velocity/energy at were the round becomes ineffective at its disired purpose (aka person, animal, or object target)
-The range at were you can engage from a natrual shooting postion or from a bench vice?

To me Effictive means, the engament of a man sized target from a natrual shooting postion with the power to effectivly "down" the target.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom