Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Infantry weapons

On 05/02/2008, at 01:13 , Ken Hall wrote:

> "Primitive:" <SNIP> These weapons fire a full-power .30 caliber (or  
> thereabouts) cartridge. Although not mentioned, the semi-automatic  
> battle rifle (M1 Garand) probably ought to be added here. Effective  
> range in the hands of a trained infantryman is 600+ meters.

I learned to shoot at school on weapons very much like these,  
starting with .22 LR at thirteen years old and graduating to 7.62  
NATO later on. I always wondered about this whole "effective range"  
thing. On a target-range, hitting a man-sized target at 600+ metres  
is not that hard, but I doubt that it really counts as effective  
range on the battlefield (though I hasten to add that I have *no*  
military experience).

Of course, a rifleman can blaze away in the general direction of the  
enemy, and the bullets will retain plenty of lethality at 600+	
metres, so if some unfortunate person happens to be in the wrong  
place at the wrong time, they'll be hit. Does that count as  
"effective" fire? It might serve a suppressive function I suppose.

If I was thinking about shooting at individuals, with a fair degree  
of confidence of hitting them, first I'd have to see them. I don't  
imagine the enemy soldiers would be standing in road-menders jackets  
on the skyline, but rather moving inconspicuously in low-visibility  
clothing. I'm not confident I could see an individual at 600m in  
those circumstances (bear in mind that all my shooting was done with  
iron sights and the vast majority of this sort of rifle was so	
equipped). Leaving aside smoke, fog, darkness, dust etc., in how many  
circumstances does one have 600m of effective visibility,  
unobstructed by trees, hedges, walls, jungle, folds in the ground etc.?

Assuming I've acquired my target, then I'd be supposed to lay my  
sights on it, control my breathing, take first pressure and finally  
fire a round (please be patient if my description is a bit off, I  
haven't handled a rifle in more than thirty years). Not too hard on  
the target range, but more difficult I suspect after running fifty  
metres to the firing position, and while the other side is shooting  
back.

I've read that one of reasons for the introduction of assault rifles  
firing intermediate power cartridges was that wartime studies had  
indicated that engagement ranges under 200m were the norm. That feels  
about right, though I've got a lot of respect for anyone who can hit  
a target at that range on the battlefield while someone is shooting  
back at them...

> A third candidate for this category is the submachine gun <SNIP>  
> Small and handy, full-auto rate of fire is impressive, but the  
> combination of relatively short barrel and pistol-cartridge  
> characteristics limits effective range to about 150 meters.

Can you really hit anything smaller than the proverbial barn at 150m  
with an SMG? On purpose, that is? I fired a Stirling a couple of  
times, and I'd say maybe 20m. My late father, who trained on the STEN  
gun, said the fixed sights were nominally set to 100yds, but that  
20-30yds was regarded as more realistic.

I'm guessing that even if some future infantryman were equipped with  
a hypothetical telescopic-sighted laser "rifle" which could zap the  
enemy at a 2000m with no windage or bullet drop, real engagement  
ranges would be capped by considerations of visibility, cover,	
tactics etc. at a lot less.

Best regards, Robert Bryett

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l