Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

[Mike_G]

A question for the military types (since I know you visit this thread!):

What would the effective range for a modern pistol/SMG and for a modern rifle/assault rifle be for the following rough classes of gun user?

• Novice (no marksmanship training at all)
• Hobbyist (someone who shoots occasionally on an amateur basis)
• Professional (competent infantryman)

By 'effective range' I mean the distance at which the shooter can hit a man-sized target with at least 50% accuracy.

Pistols can be accurate within 10 yards with some quick instruction. Nobody shoots a pistol very well over thirty yards. The biggest aspect of training is learning to aim under pressure. Pistol fights are at close quarters, which is scary. People tend to panic and jerk the trigger. SMGs are great under 30 yards. Using one semi auto, you can hit a static target easily. Short bursts are good if you are dealing with moving targets at close range.

Rifles take lots of training to get good. Marine Corps recruits are trained to shoot --without a scope-- at man sized targets out to 500 yards. We don't use anything under 200 yards for qualification. If you miss a static target at less than 200 yards under range conditions, we make fun of you and give you directions to the nearest Army recruiter.

But for a total novice, rifles should be accurate under fifty yards.

All these ranges are for a stationary target and no rushing the shot. If you are shooting a a guy who is running and dodging and shooting back, the accuracy goes down very fast.

[Brother Oni]

Further to these excellent posts, the longest range shots should be mentioned as the upper limit for effective range: link.

Apparently for the longest range shot listed there (2.815km), the round was in flight for 6 seconds.

I know for Cpl Harrison's shot (2.475km), he was aiming something like 30 degrees off the target to account for the wind and I think he said it took him about 6 shots to zero in on the targets.

These are with specialised sniper rifles though - more general purpose rifles would have the ranges listed by Mike_G. It's worth noting however that the US Marine Corp tends to treat marksmanship like a religion and take it very seriously.

I had a bit of training with the cadet version of the SA80 and I could put a 4" grouping on a figure 11 at 100m with iron sights (it was with the RTR, so Mike_G's well within his rights to laugh at me), so the estimation of 50 yards for a novice is accurate.


Doing research for your next book, Saph?

[Saph]

Doing research for your next book, Saph?

That too. This is for my Alex Verus RPG system. It's actually getting close to done.

[Galloglaich]

Given the same amount of training (average soldier in a modern army) and aiming time (say 1-3 seconds) I think you could further subdivide shooting 'from the hip' or at least 'from kneeling' and 'from standing' positions vs. prone, the latter is much easier to hit things from, especially prone / supported. I'd take a wild guess that 'from the hip' means about 10% accuracy, kneeling about 50%, standing 75%, prone 100%, and prone-supported maybe 120%

You could also probably subdivide modern 'assault rifles' like the M4, which tend to be short and have relatively short barrels, with earlier generation 'assault rifles' (M-16) and the still earlier generations of full sized 'battle rifles', today represented by the M-14 family, as well as deer rifles and so on.

The latter have arguably an effective range more in the 400-600 meter range, maybe 800 or more with a prone-supported position and a scope, whereas the M4 is probably best under 300 meters.

Some of the really long barreled rifles of the WW I era, Mauser K98 ad so on, probably could push the range out even a bit further. They even designed them to be able to do long range volley fire (the long range sights) at ranges up to 1000 meters and more though I doubt they were ever used that way.

A tripod mounted machine gun can fairly easily hit targets 1000 meters and more.

G

[Saph]

Hmm, okay. More specific question:

The current system I'm using has the range increment of the firearm multiplied by the wielder's skill rank (meaning that more skilled shooters can shoot a lot further). Do these numbers look anywhere near right? Bear in mind that the system's VERY abstract and I'm deliberately averaging gun categories together for the sake of simplicity (the only ones I've really got are 'handgun' and 'long gun').

Novice range:

Pistol: 20' short, 40' long, 80' extreme
Rifle: 100' short, 200' long, 400' extreme

Amateur range:

Pistol: 60' short, 120' long, 240' extreme
Rifle: 300' short, 600' long, 1200' extreme

Professional range:

Pistol: 100' short, 200' long, 400' extreme
Rifle: 500' short, 1000' long, 2000' extreme

[Brother Oni]

A tripod mounted machine gun can fairly easily hit targets 1000 meters and more.

That's less sniping and more hitting things via probability and saturation fire.

Do these numbers look anywhere near right?

Are those ranges in feet or yards?

[Mike_G]

Hmm, okay. More specific question:

The current system I'm using has the range increment of the firearm multiplied by the wielder's skill rank (meaning that more skilled shooters can shoot a lot further). Do these numbers look anywhere near right? Bear in mind that the system's VERY abstract and I'm deliberately averaging gun categories together for the sake of simplicity (the only ones I've really got are 'handgun' and 'long gun').

Novice range:

Pistol: 20' short, 40' long, 80' extreme
Rifle: 100' short, 200' long, 400' extreme

Amateur range:

Pistol: 60' short, 120' long, 240' extreme
Rifle: 300' short, 600' long, 1200' extreme

Professional range:

Pistol: 100' short, 200' long, 400' extreme
Rifle: 500' short, 1000' long, 2000' extreme

The pistol ranges seem a bit long. Over 100 yards with a pistol is a hell of a shot for anybody. I'd say you can cut the pistol ranges in half across the board.

The rifle ranges seem ok, assuming a good firing position and plenty of time to aim. That's pretty long if you're talking about shooting moving targets in a combat situation. If there are going to be penalties for moving targets or cover or moving while shooting these aren't bad as a baseline.

As has been said, there are better and worse rifles. A short assault rifle is a lot less accurate than a sniper rifle, but it's all down to how complex you want to go. For back-of-the-envelope stuff, I'd keep the rifle ranges as is and cut the pistol ranges down by at least a third, maybe half.

[Saph]

Are those ranges in feet or yards?

Ranges are in feet, sorry.

(Yes, there are additional penalties for movement/cover – this is for hitting a standing stationary target).

[Joran]

That's less sniping and more hitting things via probability and saturation fire.

The thing that always blew my mind was that the cartridge for the largest sniper rifles, .50 BMG (Browning Machine Gun), is the cartridge for the M2 heavy machine gun.

Apparently, some soldiers even mounted telescopic scopes to the M2 to make it into a sniper rifle. Carlos Hathcock scored a kill a 2,500 yards with one; a record that held up for awhile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Hathcock

A question for the military types (since I know you visit this thread!):

What would the effective range for a modern pistol/SMG and for a modern rifle/assault rifle be for the following rough classes of gun user?

• Novice (no marksmanship training at all)
• Hobbyist (someone who shoots occasionally on an amateur basis)
• Professional (competent infantryman)

By 'effective range' I mean the distance at which the shooter can hit a man-sized target with at least 50% accuracy.

I just hit the gun range for the first time. Up until then, my overall familiarity with guns was only with video games. We had a 45 minute class on safety as well as the general sight picture (how to line up the sights with the target) and then were let loose on the range with .22 pistols.

Firing at 10.5"x12" targets (about the size of center of my chest), my friends and I could easily hit all pistol shots into the target and about 75% in the 5.5" diameter center at 25-30' after about 25 practice rounds. This is of course with very careful aiming with a couple seconds before each shot.

I doubt we'd be able to get anywhere near that accuracy with a gun that could actually stop someone (.22 bullets are tiny) nor if told to fire quickly.

[Straybow]

Novice range:

Pistol: 20' short, 40' long, 80' extreme
Rifle: 100' short, 200' long, 400' extreme

Amateur range:

Pistol: 60' short, 120' long, 240' extreme
Rifle: 300' short, 600' long, 1200' extreme

Professional range:

Pistol: 100' short, 200' long, 400' extreme
Rifle: 500' short, 1000' long, 2000' extreme

The pistol ranges seem a bit long. Over 100 yards with a pistol is a hell of a shot for anybody. I'd say you can cut the pistol ranges in half across the board.

Yes, that would be more realistic. And we're talking about hitting a full silhouette, not just a circular "bullseye" target, so you have novices aiming CoM and hitting 'em in the shins.

[Spiryt]

I guess my complete lack of experience, partially due to dead firearm tradition over here, is really showing, but I've always found those pistol ranges surprisingly short...

I mean 20 yards is like no distance, I can hit rather small stuff at that range. Let alone airgun - I can throw a damn stick at target from that distance, or even hit it pretty reliably with a bow, and I'm pretty terrible archer.

So what gives, that with weapon that has so (relatively) flat trajectory, is easy to move around and aim, and requires like almost no fitness to shoot once etc. it's hard to hit human sized target?

[Xuc Xac]

Shooting targets on a practice range is much, much easier than shooting someone in a real combat situation. When you're in a real firefight, the target doesn't want to be hit and can move and shoot back. How accurate do you think you can be when a large burly man is holding your arms and vigorously shaking you while you try to aim? That's what adrenaline does to you.

[Mike_G]

I guess my complete lack of experience, partially due to dead firearm tradition over here, is really showing, but I've always found those pistol ranges surprisingly short...

I mean 20 yards is like no distance, I can hit rather small stuff at that range. Let alone airgun - I can throw a damn stick at target from that distance, or even hit it pretty reliably with a bow, and I'm pretty terrible archer.

So what gives, that with weapon that has so (relatively) flat trajectory, is easy to move around and aim, and requires like almost no fitness to shoot once etc. it's hard to hit human sized target?

A handgun that throws a decent sized round jerks your hand a lot more than an airgun. A .22 target pistol is great for punching holes in a paper target, but if you shoot somebody with it, you'll just make him mad.

Handgun fights are all at close range. Chances are you are full of adrenaline since there's a guy within ten feet of you trying to kill you, so you aren't taking a second to aim. If you look at ranges for handgun shootings, they're all short, most involve people emptying the gun, and people miss mroe than they hit.

On a pistol range, 25 yards is a respectable distance. Using a proper stance, taking your time and aiming, you can probably learn to hit a man sized target. But most fights happen at half that range, and most pistol shots miss.

[Brother Oni]

So what gives, that with weapon that has so (relatively) flat trajectory, is easy to move around and aim, and requires like almost no fitness to shoot once etc. it's hard to hit human sized target?

Mike_G's already listed the primary reason - short ranged gun fights are scary, thus your accuracy is already at sub-par with you moving, jerking the trigger instead of squeezing it gently (causes pistol movement), target moving, etc.

The cross section of a round is also relatively small, so while you may think it's easy to hit such a close target, a couple of degrees off and you've missed (I've heard reports of insurgents bursting into a room, unloading their rifles on full auto and not hitting a thing).

Additionally a pistol also has a short barrel, thus long ranged accuracy is poor, plus potential round deformation or rifiling effects can make for a very un-aerodynamic projectile (early versions of the M16 used to make their rounds tumble in mid-air, causing additional damage but making them very inaccurate).
The latter two effects also affect rifle rounds, but the increased barrel length helps to alleviate that. Sniper rifles in particular also tend to get the best quality ammo (referred to as 'green spot' in British forces, which are the first few hundred rounds off a brand new set of tooling) to help with round flight consistency (it would be the equivalent of inconsistent draw length and mis-matched arrows with archery), but I'm not aware of such a thing for pistols.

I'm sure the more experienced shooters have more reasons that will explain the difference.

[Spiryt]

Oh, any kind of 'real' situation is completely different matter and out of question.

I'm talking about sheer 'technical', shooting range results, like in this thread and so many other discussions.

A handgun that throws a decent sized round jerks your hand a lot more than an airgun.

This doesn't obviously have any effect on that round. Will make aiming the next one properly much more difficult though.

[Mike_G]

Oh, any kind of 'real' situation is completely different matter and out of question.

I'm talking about sheer 'technical', shooting range results, like in this thread and so many other discussions.



This doesn't obviously have any effect on that round. Will make aiming the next one properly much more difficult though.

It does, though.

Your hand and the gun are moving before the round exits the barrel. And it doesn't take much movement to nudge that round off target.

It's a lot easier to put .22 rounds in the black than .44 rounds at the same range, and that's all down to recoil.

Other than going to a pistol range and seeing just how hard it is to put big rounds on target, I can't offer you much more than "Trust me."

[Saph]

The pistol ranges seem a bit long. Over 100 yards with a pistol is a hell of a shot for anybody. I'd say you can cut the pistol ranges in half across the board.

Sounds good! That'll give a base range increment of 10' for pistols and 100' for rifles, then.

Interesting that rifles have such a longer effective range than pistols – I'd expected a figure of 2x or 4x, not 10x.

[Spiryt]

It does, though.

Your hand and the gun are moving before the round exits the barrel. And it doesn't take much movement to nudge that round off target.

I find it hard to believe...

Even with very slow bullets, they cover that few inches of barrel in like 1/400 of second.

Even with such damn ancient device, bullet is already few inches from barrel before hand starts to jerk to any noticeable degree.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um9Eos9bJDk

Interesting that rifles have such a longer effective range than pistols – I'd expected a figure of 2x or 4x, not 10x.

Well, proper rifle bullets tend to have much, much flatter trajectory, due to more 'optimal' shape and being much faster than pistol ones - usually by like 2 times.

And there's few times longer aiming line from eye to the end of the barrel as well, so that's not so surprising.

[Brother Oni]

Interesting that rifles have such a longer effective range than pistols – I'd expected a figure of 2x or 4x, not 10x.

I think it's less that rifles are so much better and more that pistols are that bad.

I find it hard to believe...

Even with very slow bullets, they cover that few inches of barrel in like 1/400 of second.

Even with such damn ancient device, bullet is already few inches from barrel before hand starts to jerk to any noticeable degree.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um9Eos9bJDk

You do realise that looks like an Old West era pistol, which tend to have little recoil and it's a revolver (less moving parts)?

With something a bit more modern and powerful, you can see the recoil effects: 1911 pistol.

I suppose we could start talking about how and when the recoil starts propogating and whether the round clears the barrel before the recoil force overcomes the pressure threshold of your grip, but Mike_G's suggestion of going down the range and seeing for yourself is probably the best proof.

[Spiryt]

I think it's less that rifles are so much better and more that pistols are that bad.



You do realise that looks like an Old West era pistol, which tend to have little recoil and it's a revolver (less moving parts)?

With something a bit more modern and powerful, you can see the recoil effects: 1911 pistol.

I suppose we could start talking about how and when the recoil starts propogating and whether the round clears the barrel before the recoil force overcomes the pressure threshold of your grip, but Mike_G's suggestion of going down the range and seeing for yourself is probably the best proof.

Uh, I'm not sure why should they have 'less recoil' - they had comparable barrels, bullets, while they were pretty light.

Power doesn't have anything at all to do with it - question is whether any movement of barrel/pistol, hand etc. starts before bullet leaves the barrel.

This video of Colt 1911 doesn't really show anything, not quite enough slowing down.

I keep reading everywhere that recoil doesn't have any significant effect on the bullet causing it at all - physics itself suggest so as well.

Force starts to act on the gun itself at the moment of ignition, but it takes way more time to accelerate the gun supported by arms that to acc. the bullet. Thus the effect will usually be rather negligible.

http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=495048

That's at least what I keep reading, as well.

I can be wrong, but going to some shooting, even if I had opportunity wouldn't tell me anything. Quite a lot of time would have to pass before I could distinguish effect of recoil on my inaccuracy.

[AMX]

Recoil may be negligible, but your own movements are not.

[Spiryt]

Recoil may be negligible, but your own movements are not.

Well, I have never claimed otherwise. Just pointing out that movement due to recoil obviously cannot really affect trajectory of that particular bullet that caused the recoil.

[Galloglaich]

I don't know the exact physics of it, but I spent a lot of time at the pistol range when I was a medic in the army (used to do that for a detail). It's like Mike_G said, if you jerk the trigger you miss, if you flinch you miss, the more recoil (and even noise) there is the more likely this is to happen especially with inexperienced shooters.

G

[Mike_G]

I'm not a physicist. I don't know what physics says the heavier round should do to your aim.

But I'm a damn fine shot, and I'll tell you that a larger round with more recoil throws off your accuracy much more than a small round with no recoil.

To bastardize Hamlet: Get thee to a gunnery.

[Mike_G]

I can be wrong, but going to some shooting, even if I had opportunity wouldn't tell me anything. Quite a lot of time would have to pass before I could distinguish effect of recoil on my inaccuracy.

You'd be surprised. With a light target pistol, like a .22, it's very easy to learn to put rounds on target. Then try a bigger round, like one that would actually be used in combat. So at least a 9mm. All else being equal, your accuracy will be much, much worse.

With a .22, I can put rounds in the bull's eye all day at 10 yards. With a .45 I can hit a man sized target somewhere but I would never bet on nailing a head shot at that range.

I assumed it was recoil moving the gun as it fired. Maybe it's something else, but whatever it is, it's there, it affects pretty much everybody and it affects every shot, not just second shots.

[JustSomeGuy]

Given the same amount of training (average soldier in a modern army) and aiming time (say 1-3 seconds) I think you could further subdivide shooting 'from the hip' or at least 'from kneeling' and 'from standing' positions vs. prone, the latter is much easier to hit things from, especially prone / supported. I'd take a wild guess that 'from the hip' means about 10% accuracy, kneeling about 50%, standing 75%, prone 100%, and prone-supported maybe 120%

Standing is worse than kneeling, and sitting beats both, and is normally useable in similar situations to kneeling. Personally, i'd say standing 60-70%, kneeling 75-80%, sitting 85-90%, although standing in a trench with full body and rifle support for example is about as good as prone so it isn't totally clear cut; it is all about the base of support and stability in your firing position.

[Raum]

I find it hard to believe...

Take a look at this video - about 1:44 in. Watch how much the laser sight bounces around the target at the different ranges. He's using a .22 which is light and doesn't have the recoil of a heavier caliber.

Aiming a handgun comes down to extremely fine movement details. Just look at the geometry of it - at a distance of 10 yards a 1 degree movement will result in ~6.3" change on the target. To make it more interesting, your sights usually cover more than one degree of arc. ;) Finally, movement starts before the bullet is fired. If your grip is wrong you'll pull or push the barrel up or down, if your finger positioning on the trigger is off you'll move it left or right, and if you're not used to the weapon you'll flinch or jerk.

[Matthew]

Of course the other thing is that mail was usually worn with textile armor, at least in any period where we can verify; often not just under the mail but also over the mail which seems to help a great deal with making the mail impervious to arrows.

Note for example in 'The Kings Mirror', section XXXVIII

The rider himself should be equipped in this wise: he should wear good soft breeches made of soft and thoroughly blackened linen cloth, which should reach up to the belt; outside these, good mail hose which should come up high enough to be girded on with a double strap; over these he must have good trousers made of linen cloth of the sort that I have already described; finally, over these he should have good knee-pieces made of thick iron and rivets hard as steel. Above and next to the body he should wear a soft gambison, which need not come lower than to the middle of, the thigh. Over this he must have a strong breastplate made of good iron covering the body from the nipples to the trousers belt; outside this, a well-made hauberk and over the hauberk a firm gambison made in the manner which I have already described but without sleeves.

Of course that is 13th Century so you are already getting into transitional / plate armor.

Nice link. DeReMilitari is/was a fantastic website. Sounds like a padded surcoat, perhaps.

[Galloglaich]

You see gambesons over armor a great deal in artwork from the late 13th and 14th centuries, some of those guys look like the Michelin tire man. I've seen some modern tests which show excellent performance against arrows with the gambeson over the mail - not because the gambeson is doing all the work, as someone suggested upthread, because the same tests tried gambeson alone (even twice as thick) and it didn't work.



This is 'the look' I'm referring to in historical art.

G

[Matthew]

Yeah, I know. I was just floating the similarity. For what it is worth, my take on why textile armour was sometimes worn over mail is that it is more effective against "armour piercing" weapons. That is to say, for example, that broadheads have an easier time penetrating textile than "piles" or bodkins.