Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We want to see your skills! Post a video between now and November 1st showing what you've learned from Frank's lessons and 3 people will be selected to win a free shirt. Good luck everyone!
Create a channel Learn more
|
According to the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard, who see and train more shooters than anyone else in the world, the maximum effective range is around 350 meters. The gun and caliber are immaterial in this discussion. That is the best the average shooter can do given the equipment he is issued. Now, there are guns that are capable of acceptable accuracy at distances far beyond that and certainly optics and better training can improve that effective range beyond that 350m point. However, you can't miss enough times to kill anything, nor can the most powerful gun in the world kill anything with a miss. Now, explosives can make up for accuracy over distance but that has to do with kill radius and you still need to get your target within the kill radius.
Said kill radius is pretty small when hunting humans or animals. A pie plate, maybe, for an Elk, a tea saucer for a human or small deer like animal. My thinking is for a humane kill as in dead right there. Against an armed human who is shooting back at you, a disabling wound would be sufficient so a bigger radius. In fact, the disabling wound may be more effective as it will eat more resources to recover, care for and return the opponent to duty. It may also allow you to close with the enemy and dispatch him at your leisure.
Just recently bought a R700 .308 ADL. Was curious on what the max effective range would be with the stock 20" barrel when shooting 180g Federal Premium trophy bonded tip(polymer tipped boat-tail)
I"ll happily entertain your reasons why not.
according to the army, navy, marines, air force, coast guard, who see and train more shooters than anyone else in the world, the maximum effective range is around 350 meters. The gun and caliber are immaterial in this discussion. That is the best the average shooter can do given the equipment he is issued. Now, there are guns that are capable of acceptable accuracy at distances far beyond that and certainly optics and better training can improve that effective range beyond that 350m point. However, you can't miss enough times to kill anything, nor can the most powerful gun in the world kill anything with a miss. Now, explosives can make up for accuracy over distance but that has to do with kill radius and you still need to get your target within the kill radius.
Said kill radius is pretty small when hunting humans or animals. A pie plate, maybe, for an elk, a tea saucer for a human or small deer like animal. My thinking is for a humane kill as in dead right there. Against an armed human who is shooting back at you, a disabling wound would be sufficient so a bigger radius. In fact, the disabling wound may be more effective as it will eat more resources to recover, care for and return the opponent to duty. It may also allow you to close with the enemy and dispatch him at your leisure.
I"ll happily entertain your reasons why not.
OK, I could have phrased it better. Let's just say the maximum effective range of the bullet far exceeds most peoples ability to place it on target in a timely manner. Sure, on a square range with all the modern shooting aids you can put a bullet into a target at multiples of 350 yards. High power shooters do it all the time. With the right training you can do better as well.
I have spent enough time on square ranges to see the same but I have also seen shooters with hunting rifles that will consider 3 shots in a pie plate at 50 yards adequate for hunting.
According to the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard, who see and train more shooters than anyone else in the world, the maximum effective range is around 350 meters. The gun and caliber are immaterial in this discussion. That is the best the average shooter can do given the equipment he is issued. Now, there are guns that are capable of acceptable accuracy at distances far beyond that and certainly optics and better training can improve that effective range beyond that 350m point. However, you can't miss enough times to kill anything, nor can the most powerful gun in the world kill anything with a miss. Now, explosives can make up for accuracy over distance but that has to do with kill radius and you still need to get your target within the kill radius.
Said kill radius is pretty small when hunting humans or animals. A pie plate, maybe, for an Elk, a tea saucer for a human or small deer like animal. My thinking is for a humane kill as in dead right there. Against an armed human who is shooting back at you, a disabling wound would be sufficient so a bigger radius. In fact, the disabling wound may be more effective as it will eat more resources to recover, care for and return the opponent to duty. It may also allow you to close with the enemy and dispatch him at your leisure.
I'm wanting to build the .308 for competition, not hunting
Just recently bought a R700 .308 ADL. Was curious on what the max effective range would be with the stock 20" barrel when shooting 180g Federal Premium trophy bonded tip(polymer tipped boat-tail)
Instead of worrying about max effective range, worry about putting on that rifle:
I think you're putting the cart before the horse
- a decent barrel suitable for competition (every ADL I've seen has pencil-thin barrels)
- a stock/chassis with detachable magazines
- match ammunition (what you've selected is not)
Have already replaced the stock and do have detachable magazines. What kind of barrel would you recommend?
I like Kriegers but there are many others out there that can make a good barrel (Pac-Nor, Hawk Hill, Bartlein, etc etc). I'd pick 24" as a nice compromise between too short and too long all-rounder. Contour should be somewhat heavier starting at a #6 sporter and going to a heavy Palma.
The guy to really talk to about barrels is the gunsmith that's going to turn it, chamber it, and install it in your action. Even if you go with a Remage, talk to the gunsmith supplying it unless you know exactly what you want.
Maximum effective range won't change, it still is the distance at which you can place a bullet on target in a timely fashion. A 308 can easily reach out to a mile or more with enough angle to the barrel. That doesn't mean you can hit your target at that distance. Since the goal is to hit the target the effective range is just that, you have to hit your target to score. Remember, we who obsess about the difference between a 1/4" and 1/2" groups are just a tiny minority of the shooters out there.
According to the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard, who see and train more shooters than anyone else in the world, the maximum effective range is around 350 meters. The gun and caliber are immaterial in this discussion. That is the best the average shooter can do given the equipment he is issued.
Better check your source. If this were true, there would be no Marines. In order to graduate boot camp and claim that title, you have to prove your effectiveness to 500 meters.
Near as I can tell, the OP is not a Marine. The army seemed happy that I could hit man sized targets out to 350m from a slung standing position. Back when I was in, we were still using M14s, I fired expert.
FT/R is a whole different discipline. So is practical rifle and service rifle shooting. A lot of training required and lots of aids to accuracy. All will increase the effective range, hell, a red dot stuck atop an AR will increase the effective range provided the user knows how to employ the device.
It doesn’t matter whether the OP was a Marine. My comment was not directed to his question; it was directed to your erroneous reply. I can’t speak to what is acceptable in the army, navy, air force, or coast guard, but when I was at Parris Island, if you could not qualify with irons up to, and including five hundred meters, you could not graduate. Therefore, if you could not prove your effectiveness beyond 350 meters, you had to pack your trash and go join the army. ;-)
And what was the criteria for qualification? 1:20, 5:20, 20:20? In how short a time and in what positions?
Your later statements actually agree with mine.
According to the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard, who see and train more shooters than anyone else in the world, the maximum effective range is around 350 meters. The gun and caliber are immaterial in this discussion. That is the best the average shooter can do given the equipment he is issued. Now, there are guns that are capable of acceptable accuracy at distances far beyond that and certainly optics and better training can improve that effective range beyond that 350m point. However, you can't miss enough times to kill anything, nor can the most powerful gun in the world kill anything with a miss. Now, explosives can make up for accuracy over distance but that has to do with kill radius and you still need to get your target within the kill radius.
Said kill radius is pretty small when hunting humans or animals. A pie plate, maybe, for an Elk, a tea saucer for a human or small deer like animal. My thinking is for a humane kill as in dead right there. Against an armed human who is shooting back at you, a disabling wound would be sufficient so a bigger radius. In fact, the disabling wound may be more effective as it will eat more resources to recover, care for and return the opponent to duty. It may also allow you to close with the enemy and dispatch him at your leisure.
And what was the criteria for qualification? 1:20, 5:20, 20:20? In how short a time and in what positions?
Your later statements actually agree with mine.
OK, I could have phrased it better. Let's just say the maximum effective range of the bullet far exceeds most peoples ability to place it on target in a timely manner. Sure, on a square range with all the modern shooting aids you can put a bullet into a target at multiples of 350 yards. High power shooters do it all the time. With the right training you can do better as well.
I have spent enough time on square ranges to see the same but I have also seen shooters with hunting rifles that will consider 3 shots in a pie plate at 50 yards adequate for hunting.
Suck my sweaty balls, asshole. It is you. who is being the loud mouthed idiot here. Guns do not shoot themselves, therefore, to be effective, the shooter must direct the gun on target and pull the trigger. Effective range is the range at which the shooter can deliver the bullet on target and with sufficient energy to do the designated job.
every one of the negative posts i have gotten are from folks who have worked at shooting for years and years, either as a hobby or in their profession. Of course, i would expect a swat sniper to be able to hit a man sized target in the chest at 600 yards when shooting from even a cheap rest with not the best of optics. I would also expect someone who spent enough time at the game to enter ftr competition to be able to do pretty much the same.
Now go take the average civilian off the street, hand him a rifle, let him shoot a couple boxes of ammo with only minimal training with a group of 40 other guys and see how he does on that same 600 yard chest shot. Oh add a somewhat worn off the rack rifle with iron sights. I know training has evolved since i took basic but when i went through, there were guys who could barley be trusted not to shoot themselves at the end of the training period. Yeah, some of them did not advance any further cause of their ineptitude. I'm sure the usmc still trains riflemen to a higher standard, i'm familiar with the abilities of the guys who participate in the service rifle matches.
My point is, these guys are not the average shooters. Head out to any public rifle range on the weekend or the local gravel pit and see what the shooters are doing in the weeks before deer season opens. Those are the average shooter.
I'm 75 now and my physical abilities are waining as are my eyes. I started shooting when i was 7, i could probably still make that shot but i'm not the average shooter nor am i the shooter who qualified as a 20 year old in 1962.
Damn, tough crowd here tonight! I think you ran off the OP.......
Every one of the negative posts I have gotten are from folks who have worked at shooting for years and years, either as a hobby or in their profession. Of course, I would expect a SWAT sniper to be able to hit a man sized target in the chest at 600 yards when shooting from even a cheap rest with not the best of optics. I would also expect someone who spent enough time at the game to enter FTR competition to be able to do pretty much the same.
Now go take the average civilian off the street, hand him a rifle, let him shoot a couple boxes of ammo with only minimal training with a group of 40 other guys and see how he does on that same 600 yard chest shot. Oh add a somewhat worn off the rack rifle with iron sights. I know training has evolved since I took basic but when I went through, there were guys who could barley be trusted not to shoot themselves at the end of the training period. Yeah, some of them did not advance any further cause of their ineptitude. I'm sure the USMC still trains riflemen to a higher standard, I'm familiar with the abilities of the guys who participate in the service rifle matches.
My point is, these guys are not the average shooters. Head out to any public rifle range on the weekend or the local gravel pit and see what the shooters are doing in the weeks before deer season opens. Those are the average shooter.
I'm 75 now and my physical abilities are waining as are my eyes. I started shooting when I was 7, I could probably still make that shot but I'm not the average shooter nor am I the shooter who qualified as a 20 year old in 1962.
And so you are corrected, I am a Marine, I served my time at Lejeune after I graduated at the Island. I have qualified expert on table 1 all the way up to the 500 meter line shooting m14 with iron sights.
I thought so. "2nd Award Lance" gave it away. Semper Fi.
No, they have not ran me off, been busy as hell at work
Every one of the negative posts I have gotten are from folks who have worked at shooting for years and years, either as a hobby or in their profession. Of course, I would expect a SWAT sniper to be able to hit a man sized target in the chest at 600 yards when shooting from even a cheap rest with not the best of optics. I would also expect someone who spent enough time at the game to enter FTR competition to be able to do pretty much the same.
Now go take the average civilian off the street, hand him a rifle, let him shoot a couple boxes of ammo with only minimal training with a group of 40 other guys and see how he does on that same 600 yard chest shot. Oh add a somewhat worn off the rack rifle with iron sights. I know training has evolved since I took basic but when I went through, there were guys who could barley be trusted not to shoot themselves at the end of the training period. Yeah, some of them did not advance any further cause of their ineptitude. I'm sure the USMC still trains riflemen to a higher standard, I'm familiar with the abilities of the guys who participate in the service rifle matches.
My point is, these guys are not the average shooters. Head out to any public rifle range on the weekend or the local gravel pit and see what the shooters are doing in the weeks before deer season opens. Those are the average shooter.
I'm 75 now and my physical abilities are waining as are my eyes. I started shooting when I was 7, I could probably still make that shot but I'm not the average shooter nor am I the shooter who qualified as a 20 year old in 1962.