>military grade rifles

I'd like to say something about this real quick. Typically, the rifles marketed to civilians are of better quality. This is because the DoD will cut corners to keep that number at the bottom line low. This is my personal experience in the army.

>Submachine gun
Effective Range: 75-125 meters

>Rifle: deer/moose/elk/bear hunting, typically bolt action, .30 caliber with scope
Effective Range: 600-700 meters

>Sniper rifle: see hunting rifle
Effective Range: 600-700 meters

>Rifle: lever action
Effective Range: 100 meters

>Assault rifle
Effective Range: 300-400 meters

>Shotgun
Effective Range: 5 meters with birdshot, 25 meters with buckshot, 100 meters with slugs

>Handgun
Effective Range: 20-40 meters

>Machinegun: roughly .50 caliber
Effective range: 1800 meters

>Machinegun: .30 caliber
Effective Range: 900 meters

>Machinegun: light, typically 5.56x45mm or 7.62x39mm
Effective Range: 600 meters

Note: typically when I refer to ".30 caliber", I am referring to cartridges of similar power and ballistics to .30 caliber rifle cartridges used in the first and second world wars. This includes .30-06, 8mm Mauser, 7.62x54R, .303 and .308, but specifically excludes 7.62x39mm (assault rifle cartridge), .30 carbine (comparable to .357 magnum) and .32 Auto ("mousegun" pistol cartridge).

>Rifle: lever action
Effective Range: 100 meters

Hey there little lady, that's quite a broad statement. I've seen guys blow a hole through deer at 700 yards with a 300 grain .45 colt. A .454 would do even better, and the .45-70 in a 32 inch barrel can plow through shit out to 1200 yards.

>>17865

My maximum effective range estimates were too low for that category. Your claims are within the realm of possibility and I have no reason to doubt them. However, 700 yards is not the maximum effective range of a typical .45 Colt rifle. A good marksman with a modern pistol suited for combat can hit man-sized targets at 200 meters with enough energy to kill a man, but 200 meters is not the maximum effective range of the pistol. I hope you understand the information I am attempting to transport.

By making the Rifle: Lever Action category, I wished to demonstrate a difference between the typical .308 or .300 Winchester Magnum bolt action rifle with magnified optics and the typical "thuddy-thuddy remchester" lever action rifle with open sights. I intentionally did not take into account specialized lever action rifles which perform better at long ranges, and I failed to take into account the actual maximum effective range of the category.

I would adjust the estimated maximum effective range for the Rifle: Lever Action category to 200 meters, perhaps even 300 meters. This category would include rifles which fire .38 Special, .357 Magnum, .30-30 Winchester, .44 Special, .44 Magnum, .45 Colt, and any similar cartridge. Rifles that fire cartridges like the .45-70 are somewhat atypical, and therefore should be placed in a separate high energy category.

>A good marksman with a modern pistol suited for combat can hit man-sized targets at 200 meters with enough energy to kill a man

i stopped reading there. Sorry bro, but 70 yards is just about the max for any given pistol not shooting super-mega handloaded cartridges. Also, the rest of your post made no sense.

>>17873

I am unable to demonstrate the 200 meter shot with a pistol to you personally for numerous reasons, so I will ask you to search for the relevant terms on a video sharing website such as youtube.com. Numerous people are able to hit stationary targets roughly 6 feet tall and 3 feet wide at 200 meters with pistols like the 1911 and GLOCK, using standard ammunition. If you refuse to observe this evidence I will not bother to dispute your ignorant opinion. As I have attempted to convey in prior postings, hitting a target at 200 meters is possible with a modern pistol, but is not considered practical. Thus, the maximum effective range of a pistol, like any firearm, is less than the maximum range of its projectiles.

I do not see any reason for my posting to have "made no sense", but it is remotely plausible. At times my syntax causes misunderstanding, which is regrettable. Please ask for clarification about specific portions of my post, otherwise improving your understanding of my message is impossible.

>>17876
I'm not the other guy, buuuuut:
"Effective range" is not "how far the farthest shots are". It's "how far can an average user hit a human-sized target as often as they miss". The effective range of a rifle is not 2 kilometers just because shots have been made at that distance.

>200 meters is not the maximum effective range of the pistol
You're right, it's probably closer to 50.

>the maximum effective range of a pistol, like any firearm, is less than the maximum range of its projectiles.

I wasn't disputing this, but a .45 ACP isn't going to have enough energy left at 200 yards to kill someone. Also, your "syntax" is very annoying, and you come over as a snob.

SAGE has been used.

>>17878
We're ignoring that the fact that the MG distances are off-the-wall fucking crazy.

I have to assume that the recipient of this list, in looking for an "effective range" is going to want an aimed shot.

>Sir, there's something on the horizon over there. Looks like it's at least 1,800m away.
>Looks like it, corporal. Go climb up on the M2 and look through the 22x scope.

Nah.

>>17884

The distances are not off the wall crazy. Maximum effective range refers to the furthest distance at which the weapon can practically be used. In the case of a machinegun, this obviously would not involve a single aimed shot, but a burst of rounds aimed at the target. Look it up in Jane's.

>>17887
I'm not arguing that, but if you think you can direct machine-gun fire at a target almost two kilometers away effectively, you should make a youtube video of it.

And don't pull out the fact that automatic weapons are used for suppressive fire. They are, but then indirect fire coming down in a spray at 4 kilometers, causing enemy combatants to duck counts as effective range for the weapon.

>indirect fire coming down in a spray at 4 kilometers, causing enemy combatants to duck counts as effective range for the weapon
What? No. It's based on the distance at which you can hit a target, not the distance at which you can make use of the weapon. Going by your example, a broken weapon could have an effective range by threatening with it.

>>17899
I am so confused at this post. Re-read mine please.

Perhaps you people would be less confused if you'd learn about weapons instead of picking apart each other's posts.

>>17903
Discussion is good, yes. So.. likewise..

SAGE has been used.