Re: Marksmanship

Thomas Barclay wrote:

> ** True. That is why we have suppresion counters, potentially morale
> checks, etc. Point being I didn't make up the effective ranges that
> the Pentagon invented and Colt and other combat rifle designers these
> days sort of spec to. 400-500m is sort of the limit expected for
> modern small arms combat (with rifles anyhow, although greater ranges
> are possible). It'll be less than this in areas where visibility is
> limited. But even so, having a rifle with a max unaimed (by that I
> mean snap shots) range of 72m does seem a little bizarre to me...
>

In the US Army, effective small arms range is considered 300 meters,
though the M4/M16 obviously hits out farther. (But not really the M203)

> ** I seem to recall CF range days where you'd execute snaps at 50,
> 100, or even 200m+. Having a max range of 72m just strikes me as a
> little off. Tacks don't shoot back, but if I can only hit out to 72m,
> maybe I'd be better of firing tacks... <g>

We what are you guys defining as snap fire. The US marksmanship tables
has targets from 50m out to 350 meters. If you are lucky enough to fire
on an automated range that includes pop are targets instead of
stationary. Half your rounds are fired from porne supported (where the
weapons and fires rets on sandbags, or whatever) and the others half in
unsupported where you don't rest the weapon on anything. (BTW, an urban
legend (for lack of better term) is that you can't fire the M16 by
resting it on the mag. That is bs. There is never any reason to fire the
weapon from the prone unsupported position. For some reasons they still
teach that in teh reg marksmanship course though in SF/Delta/UDT that's
been tossed out the window for years.

Anyway I digress. What we consider snap fire is that you are walking
along with weapon at low carry and a target presents itself, at whatever
range. You have to bring the target up to engage immediately without
really aiming (except for the front site). With that in mind 75m is
reasonable since a standing unsupported shot at a target over 75m in
anything less than a second is not really a "snap fire". It's taking aim
at something in a  proper way. Not taht it can't be done, but normally
you are talking about what the average shooter can do, (since that's
what
the world's made up of) not mister IMPS champion. IMO.

Los