[Jubbles]

I was looking through the firearms blog when I came across an article about "1959 Operational Requirements for an Infantry Hand Weapon" which looking at the graph of the likely hood that an enemy target will be seen beyond 300yds to be very low (less than 10% chance of you seeing them) and the chances of a hit even lower.

Whilst the interview is based around the use of the M1 Garand by Korean war veterans we can still take a great deal from this article in regards to our choices of firearms and calibers.

Whilst the odds of hitting enemy targets at any range have improved with higher quality firearms and sighting systems the Mk1 human eyeball remains the same. We must note that camouflage has also improved greatly

So the fact that the odds of spotting a target at 200yds was according to the article roughly 50% makes me wonder how accurate and ranged our firearms need to be. Perhaps ideas of "picking them off from 600yds" are completely wrong and cheaper faster shooting weapons for up to 250 yards are all thats needed. I will post the graph and the link to the PDF of the article.
PDF Link (go to bottom of page) http://www.cfspress.com/sharpshooters/battle-ranges.html

We of course must remember that the article is from 1959 and based on experiences in Korea and with the M1 Garand however I think much remains true.

 

[riorust]

Thanks for the link. I downloaded the PDF and read the study... some interesting stats in there.

 

[Jubbles]

The thing I found most interesting was the chances of spotting the enemy being so low after 200yds which makes me think that any slow firing rifle may not be the best choice, in particular the argument that a higher caliber is required may not be true given the findings in this article and so 5.56/6.8/7.62x39 may be ideal for the survivalist.

 

[ldmaster]

And yet, that presupposes an ARMY with any infantryman backed by a supply train, on-call arty, spotters and other forms of indirect fire.

Anybody remember the movie, Top-Gun? One of the premises for the school were that pilots had gotten dependenton missiles (smart weapons). As the doctrine proves itself out, or disproves itself out, we find that NOW we have "designated marksmen" and the like on a patrol, equipped with a longer-shooting option (optics) and upgraded weapon, it has been found that the 300yd or less engagement is not the only factor that needs to be addressed.

 

[Jubbles]

And yet, that presupposes an ARMY with any infantryman backed by a supply train, on-call arty, spotters and other forms of indirect fire.

Anybody remember the movie, Top-Gun? One of the premises for the school were that pilots had gotten dependenton missiles (smart weapons). As the doctrine proves itself out, or disproves itself out, we find that NOW we have "designated marksmen" and the like on a patrol, equipped with a longer-shooting option (optics) and upgraded weapon, it has been found that the 300yd or less engagement is not the only factor that needs to be addressed.

do you mean to say that you are surprised that it has taken this long for designated marksmen to appear or that the argument fails on the basis of its findings that seeing the enemy is very hard beyond 200yds?

 

[Herd Sniper]

The 300 yard/meter vision limit has been around for many, many years in one form or another. It originally surfaced some time after the American Civil War over in Europe. When WW1 came, Americans who had never heard of this theory or didn't believe in it, were shooting Germans at extreme ranges that the British and French military people thought involved some kind of gimmicks. The Germans, who believed the same thing as the rest of the Europeans, were crying about American marksmen shooting them dead from 500 meters! The American rifleman has ALWAYS been a long range shooter that most other foreign armies failed to understand. The Germans brought out snipers to use against the Allies infantry which caused the Brits to bring out their snipers. Our guys initially worked against the German snipers with their 30.06 iron sights from their O3A3 rifles and then later on started using scoped rifles. A good example of routine American rifle marksmanship was Sgt. Alvin York and the way he used his rifle "to hunt Germans." I guess that we Americans have spoiled the world's opinion on this maximum 300 meter maximum shooting distance for average riflemen and forced them to get serious about sniping and snipers.

 

[Jubbles]

The 300 yard/meter vision limit has been around for many, many years in one form or another. It originally surfaced some time after the American Civil War over in Europe. When WW1 came, Americans who had never heard of this theory or didn't believe in it, were shooting Germans at extreme ranges that the British and French military people thought involved some kind of gimmicks. The Germans, who believed the same thing as the rest of the Europeans, were crying about American marksmen shooting them dead from 500 meters! The American rifleman has ALWAYS been a long range shooter that most other foreign armies failed to understand. The Germans brought out snipers to use against the Allies infantry which caused the Brits to bring out their snipers. Our guys initially worked against the German snipers with their 30.06 iron sights from their O3A3 rifles and then later on started using scoped rifles. A good example of routine American rifle marksmanship was Sgt. Alvin York and the way he used his rifle "to hunt Germans." I guess that we Americans have spoiled the world's opinion on this maximum 300 meter maximum shooting distance for average riflemen and forced them to get serious about sniping and snipers.

Don't mean to be rude but have you got a linky or two to back that up? particularly in regards to the WW1 stuff.

Also the report was written based on American soldiers and by an American so far as I can tell.

 

[klickitat]

Don't mean to be rude but have you got a linky or two to back that up? particularly in regards to the WW1 stuff.

Fairly much common knowledge, but if you want, go to the Apple seed project and read some that stuff.

Something that this report does not take into account is the use of scopes in the last decade and how that has pushed ranges out. I figure 400 yards is the max that I will ever be shooting at.

 

[Jubbles]

Fairly much common knowledge, but if you want, go to the Apple seed project and read some that stuff.

Something that this report does not take into account is the use of scopes in the last decade and how that has pushed ranges out. I figure 400 yards is the max that I will ever be shooting at.

Indeed it doesn't take into account scoped rifles becoming common usage, however binoculars were in common usage and had similar magnification but wider scopes of view.

I think that scoped weapons will not increase seeing the enemy initially dramatically as they provide a narrow field of view and would require constant scanning and be inefficient at it.

 

[Litsgt]

Don't mean to be rude but have you got a linky or two to back that up? particularly in regards to the WW1 stuff.

Also the report was written based on American soldiers and by an American so far as I can tell.

yea, alvin york captured something like a whole company of germans single handed. he honed his skills getting headshots on turkeys in the TN valley.

 

[kenxkillz]

Don't mean to be rude but have you got a linky or two to back that up? particularly in regards to the WW1 stuff.

Also the report was written based on American soldiers and by an American so far as I can tell.

I have also heard that American Marines would drop Germans at 500-600 yards with their 1903s. Nothing to back it up though, i just know i have heard of it on multiple occasions.

I also remember hearing about an instance where germans were marching around at 7 or 800 yards and the Marines opened up on them and started nailing them. I think i heard that one on the top 10 rifles when the 1903 was up.

 

[Jubbles]

I imagine that what you are all saying about the range of the rifles being used being very true, I just find it hard to believe that any European power would believe all combat was 300 and below, particularly the British after their experience in the Boer war

 

[Perk]

Your actual contact will be more like 15-35ft, therefore a rifie may not be needed, but a good sawed off shotgun will definately rate attention, and demand respect.

 

[Jubbles]

Your actual contact will be more like 15-35ft, therefore a rifie may not be needed, but a good sawed off shotgun will definately rate attention, and demand respect.

I think to say that all contacts will be 15-35ft is a gross assumption to make

 

[redranger1]

Ok, so for the sake of the argument well say most soldiers dont see an enemy from 2-300 meters. What does that really have to do with accuracy of a weapon aside from establishing a minimum range accuracy standard? It sounds to me like someone is looking to justify an inaccurate weapon? If that is the case you clearly have no understanding of giving yourself and/or soldiers the best equipment you can to get a particular job done. In battle your physical limitations can sometimes be overwhelming depending on the situation. Why limit yourself more if you dont have to?


-Nate

 

[Hick Industries]

Folks with hunting experience out here in the arid west will tell you that the unaided human eye can not typically pick out any target beyond 300 yds. Which is why we all carry really nice 10x binocs. The more experience the hunter is, the better his optics, the more he scouts with optics, and the less he walks.

 

[13Fox150]

Take it for what it's worth but my personal experience would agree with the info in the OP. I'll never know how many (hopefully none) targets I didn't see out past 300m in Iraq or Afghanistan but even qualification shooting ranges at that distance can be tricky. Sometimes, when light conditions cause shadows or the grass hasn't been mowed the 300m target on a standard Army range can be hard to see. And that is on a designated lane where and when I know the target is going to present itself. So the idea that a live human that doesn't want to be seen being a tough acquisition makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Herd Sniper]

Here's some websites about Marine snipers at Belleau Woods. Looks like one of them was making a 1400 yard/meter shot at one point. There's also a couple of sights that discuss rifle marksmanship.

http://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=13219

http://shootingmessengers.blogspot.com/2006/06/remembering-battle-of-belleau-wood.html

This next site tells about Marines having to qualify on targets at 500 meters.

http://aoundthescuttlebutt.blogspot.com/2008/12/basic-school-contd.html

This next sight is my favorite because right at the start it tells you how the average rifleman has trouble hitting a target at 300 meters but also how snipers will hit a 600 meter target 90% of the time.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armytrng/a/sniperschool.htm

So the 300 meter limitations really has never been much of an issue for most American riflemen. But some of that comes about because of the wide open spaces we used to have to shoot for hunting animals like bison, deer and elk.

And now with the SUSAT and AGOG scope systems being in military inventories, it looks like the 300 meter limitation will soon be a thing of the past. Most ACOGs are measured for shooting all the way out to 800 meters.

 

[MtnTop]

Folks with hunting experience out here in the arid west will tell you that the unaided human eye can not typically pick out any target beyond 300 yds. Which is why we all carry really nice 10x binocs. The more experience the hunter is, the better his optics, the more he scouts with optics, and the less he walks.

Cannot afford to be inefficient in SHTF type scenarios, but this is especially true in the desert/high desert due to constant extreme weather and totally relentless conditions. Hick brings up a really valid point; sort of like measure twice cut once, scout it and use 1/20th of the energy before you expend calories and water making your move out in the desert. Better to do that than expend a whole mess of energy going up and down mountains that you didn't have to, or worse, coming to a "dead end" and not having the energy/hydration to turn around and start over. Doesn't end well.

Also, American's have a tradition of having to be good marksmen in order to survive. People didn't always live in suburbs/cities. In fact it wasn't until relatively recently that the majority of the United State's population live in cities/urbanized area's. In order to put food on the table, rural area folk relied heavily on hunting; naturally, these skills carried over to the military. Compared to most of the rest of the world (read enemies) that was already civilized/living in cities when the modern firearm was coming onto the scene.

 

[Herd Sniper]

It really wasn't about the time of WW1 that the U.S. began to really become urban in nature. Prior to WW1, most of America was rural for the most part.