Effective range question.....and more.

O

Orion_VTOL

New member
What is the effective range of the .223 coming out of a 16" barrel? I guess I would have to also ask what would be the max distance of a hit on a target?

Also, I'm still trying to decide between the following:

(All Bushmaster uppers for my postban lower)
16" Shorty
16" Dissapator
Postban M4

I thought about going 20", but I'd like to stay as light (in weight) as possible.

One other thing, I'm going with Bushmaster because I believe their quality, and longevity is probably worth the extra $150 that I'll pay vs. a FN upper with Wilson barrel (like from M&A Parts). I believe I'm correct on that. Right?

Thanks!

[This message has been edited by Orion_VTOL (edited September 18, 2000).]
 
Depends more on you, amigo, than the gun. With the Dissipator, you get the full sighting radius, which probably means more than the barrel length, as far practical field use is concerned. I don't think the limitations are in the rifle, but rather the rifleman. The bullets probably won't keyhole at any distance at which you'd care to engage. If you can get the bullet on target, much damage will result.

Just my opinion...
 
I have a Dissipator, and it is capable of much greater accuracy than I am. It is not very light though, for a carbine.
 
Thanks for the replies guys.

Correia, that's one of the reasons I'm considering the Postban M4. It will be lighter. I wish I could get one as light as the Professional Ordinance Carbon 15, but that won't happen with metal. I don't plan on doing any 'rapid fire' with whatever I get, so barrel whip shouldn't be a factor. The reason I bring that up is because the Postban M4 barrel isn't uniform in diameter size, and I'm concerned that it heats up differently in the different diameters, which could cause more whip. I could VERY WELL be wrong though. :)
 
The farthest that I have shot my AR has been 200 yards at a metal gong. Granted there was an optical sight on it, but the rifle has a 16" heavy barrel.
 
If it helps for comparison, the USMC issue M16 has a max effective range of 500 meters on a point target, and 800 meters on an area target. Its been a few years since I had to memorize that but I know thats close.
 
I have found that the weight and feel of ARs is kind of subjective. But for me the Dissipator has the best "heft". I would recommend getting a hold of one of each and shooting the heck out of them. :)

Bummer, we had one of each at the Utah TFL get-together this weekend. :D
 
Correia, by "heft", when you are talking about weight, can you explain why the Dissapator would be better, even though it weighs a little more than the other two mentioned? Thanks!
 
Orion, the Dissipator is not necessairly heavier than a CAR version of the AR15.

The only advantage, in some applications, of the Dissipator is the longer sight radius (distance from the rear sight to the front sight post). This longer distance (longer then a CAR AR15), does provide for beter longer range accuracy potential. As Correia, stated, the rifle may be very accurate, but are you?...

I suggest that if are not going to exclusively shoot very long distances, and I mean 300 yards plus, that you stick with the 16". The only differences between the 16 and 20 will be the weight and the muzzle velocity. Remember, muzzle velocity is not synonomous with accuracy. With the proper optics or other sight you can easily still shoot longer ranges with the 16" if you choose to.

My first AR15 was a 20". I now have 3 16" AR's and a custom 18". Screw the 20, it's too bulky and too heavy - IMO.

I would agree with your choice to get a Bushmaster. I like the fact that the Bushy's have the chrome lined barrels for that extra long life. Although I have one Colt and it has been flawless I would not buy another both for political reasons and because Colt uses non-standard trigger group pins. You cannot go wrong with the Bushy.

Another thought, again, unless you are going to shoot very long distances at very small targets, there is a way to even further reduce the weight of a 16" carbine. You can easily and cheaply get the barrel, under the handguards, turned down to a smaller diameter to shave off some weight. The "whipping" effect you are concerned about will be extremely minimal - again - unless you are shooting very long distances and very small targets. I had one of my barrels turned down and boy, does that thing sweep well now. The balance of that upper is great.

Good luck with your rifle. The Bushy will do you well.

CMOS

------------------
NRA? Good. Now join the GOA!

The NRA is our shield, the GOA will be our sword.
 
Instead of heft, perhaps I should have said balance. The extra muzzle weight gives it a different balance and feel. Some folks like it better, others do not.

CMOS just gave some excellent advice.
 
Just to weigh in with a few points.

What is your definition of 'effective range'? Is it the ability to punch holes in paper with regularity, or is to put holes on living targets? That is a question that needs to be answered before you can seriously move on.

Sight radius is a good thing, longer being better, but what if a scope is used? Then arguments about iron sights, and their radius, go out the window. I think a more important question would be what is the rifling twist of the barrel, and what bullet weights are going to be used? These are things that have more of an effect on the 'effective range' then the radius (IMHO)

Elmer Keith scored hits at incredible ranges with handguns - so by my way of thinking, a short sight radius can be overcome - given practice. The other points that I mentioned about barrel twist and bullet weights have a greater bearing on the 'range' of the weapon and would therefore merit more attention.

So, all you need to do is find a good load which your rifle likes, and you'll see your effective range increase, almost magically!

Good luck!
I'm out!
 
Unkel Gilbey, I guess I am talking (accuracy wise) at an area of about 4-5 inches.

Barrel twist would be the 1-9.

Bullets used, I'm not really sure. Will probably use regular cheap stuff for practice, but for longer distances, I may go with something like Winchester's Ballistic Silver Tip or the like.

I appreciate all the great advise, guys! :)
 
Another way to approach the question is to calculate the velocity fall off from different length barrels.

Below 2200 fps (i think) you loose the fragmentation effect of M193 on impact

dZ
 
dZ, 2700 fps is where M193 looses the fragmentation effect. Hollowpoints will take up the slack, though. ;)
 
this was posted to the AR list:
The M193 and M855 range data is from the January/February, 1988 issue of
Rifle magazine pages 36, 37, 70 and 71. The article was written by John
Schaefer.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.56 NATO Ball Ammunition Ballistic Comparison
based on Aberdeen Proving Ground Data
velocity (fps) trajectory (in.) drop (inches) drift (inches)*
range M193 M855 M193 M855 M193 M855 M193 M855
(meters)
0 3,200 3,100 -2.5 -2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
100 2,774 2,751 +2.8 +4.4 -2.2 -2.3 1.3 1.1
200 2,374 2,420 +2.7 +5.8 -9.9 -10.2 5.8 4.9
300 2,012 2,115 -4.9 0.0 -25.1 -25.3 14.2 11.8
400 1,680 1,833 -23.0 -15.0 -50.8 -49.5 27.6 22.4
500 1,373 1,569 -56.2 -42.9 -91.6 -86.7 47.5 38.0
600 1,106 1,323 -113.1 -88.2 -156.1 -141.3 76.4 59.5
700 995 1,106 -206.8 -156.1 -257.3 -220.9 113.5 88.4
800 927 1,010 -339.9 -267.7 -398.0 -339.2 156.1 124.9

* Drift for 10 mph wind.
M193 Ball ammunition fired in M16A1 rifle with 250 meter battle sight zero.
M855 Ball ammunition fired in M16A2 rifle with 300 meter battle sight zero.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top