AR Sponsor
Posted: 12/13/2004 10:27:31 AM EDT
|
my friend said that a bullet shot-out from an M4 could travel almost 3 miles before it drop. is that true? what is a kill range for an M4? for example: If i shoot a cow with a weight of 300 lbs with a range of 1 mile, what will happen to the cow? die or serious injure? *I don't plan to shoot any cow, just a curious question* thanks |
What caliber cow? And from a 16" or 20" barrel? Cows depend on high velocity for fragmentation, so beyond a certain range whatever it hits will end up with only cow-sized holes through it due to no fragmentation of the cow. |
|
|
Another physics question, we're on a roll today! Anyway you would have to be standing on top of something. If you were to shoot from a standing position the bullet would only travel around 3000feet before hitting the ground. No matter how fast the bullet is moving gravity acts on at the same rate. So if you drop something from about the height from there you would be shooting something(depending on how tall you are) the bullet would only be able to travel for about one second. Thats negelcting air resistance. I think the ammo-oracle has some charts the deal with fragmentation. I also have no idea what kind of effects air resistance has on a bullet's velocity. |
|
Zeroed at 100 yards a 77grn. SMK outta my CR6724 w/ a 24" barrel will drop in the vicinity if 355 inches or 29.6 feet at 1000 yards. If you hold your rifle level with the ground, unless your standing on a hill, the 223 round ain't gonna make it to the 1000 yard line. (provided of course your of normal height 6') If you point the rifle 45 degrees into the air, even my long range 24" AR using a M193 round, suspect it'll hit the ground BEFORE it makes 2 miles (something NO WAY I'd recommend trying). I suspect a 14.5" M4 would get to no more than 1.5 miles before the round returned to the dirt. IIRC, the max listed Military range of a M16A2 is 800 meters. Mike |
It's called 'area fire'. (which is used for supressive fire when you don't have an M249 or M240 for supression). The military lists the max effectiver range for a 'point target' at 550M (i.e. a single enemy soldier). After that the accuracy just isn't there with an off-the-rack rifle and military ammo. The -10 on page 3 lists the maximum range of the M16A2 (using M855) as 3534M, which is equal to 2.2miles (and I'll bet money it means the rifle was fired at a 45 degree angle). The older -10 (for the M16A1) also on Page 3 lists the maximum range of the M16A1 (using M193) as 2653M; which is equal to 1.6 Miles. |
Good point. I didn't believe it when my Physics teacher told me about this, but it's true. Height doesn't matter either. If you are 6" off the ground, the bullet fired out of the gun will hit the ground the same as a bullet simply dropped from the same height. I asked the Professor "Well what about accelleration? Purpulsion?" He said it doesn't matter, gravity will act the same on everything with the same mass. Cool stuff. |
It can, but just don't expect to hit anything.
Talk to the guys in the Hunting section. Though there have been posts here on Deer and Bear taken with .223 ARs.. |
| I guess you could use 5.56mm for deer, but it would be best to try and get them at closer ranges. (Black Powder ranges) It's a small bullet, and you wouldn't want to hit a buck and have him run off to die a slow death. For Hog hunting the 5.56mm is great though. |
The problem is that without a clear definition of "effective", such a statement is meaningless. (Note: this isn't directed at you personally; it's just that "effective" is rarely defined in articles or statements talking about weapon performance.) Some articles define "effective" as "the bullet will strike within a circle of such-and-such a diameter at such-and-such a range," which is really defining effective ACCURACY. To me, "effectieness" is a discussion of terminal ballistic performance, because the whole point of shooting guns in combat is to cause wounds to the enemy. Unfortunately, this type of performance is rarely discussed. -Troy |
1 steak ,coming up!
Yeah, that's why I put "effective" in quotation. This is just one of those ranges I had to memorize for the Army. So whatever they mean by effective. I generally understood it to mean that the bullet was lethal up to that range. ETA: M16A2 Effective range Point target 550m, Area target 800m, still lethal? 1250m |
It would probably take one of those big naval deck guns  lol - thankfully I have spell checker... ______________________________________________________________ Eagles may fly, but weasels don’t get sucked into jet engines! |
|
The energy is what matters. It is supposed to take about 600-800 foot*lbs to kill a deer. From a 223, with a 55 grain bullet at 3200 from the muzzle and a ballistic coefficient of .25, you would have 756 ft*lbs at 200 yards and 577 at 300 yards. You might wound the deer, but good luck killing it with one shot beyond 200 yards (of course, most wounded deer die EVENTUALLY). That's why there was a thread a couple of weeks ago about the ethics of deer hunting with a 223. YOu gotta hit him just right, you don't have energy to spare. Especially not at any kind of range. The energy required for a kill depends somewhat on the size of the animal, thichness of the hide, etc. i don't konw what it is for a cow, but I don't think you'll kill one with one shot unless you're point blank and hit him square. I also don't know what energy is required to kill a human, but I bet some on here do. I suspect that it's similar to a deer, given similar weight, but probably humans have softer skin. I have a feeling that a 223 does alot of wounding and not much killing (depending on shot placement) beyond 300 -400 yards. |
This is FALSE. Need proof? Can a .22Short kill a deer reliably from 40 feet? No? Well, a broadhead hunting arrow has less energy, but is considered a reliable deer killer. What matters is how effectively the bullet can convert the energy it retains at impact into damaged tissue, because it's tissue damage that stops and/or kills. Thus, while energy is one important factor, bullet design and construction are at least equally as important, as is shot placement. A poorly-designed bullet can have a lot more energy then a well-designed bullet and still make a much smaller wound. Please read the www.ammo-oracle.com -Troy |
|
"This is FALSE. Need proof? Can a .22Short kill a deer reliably from 40 feet? No? Well, a broadhead hunting arrow has less energy, but is considered a reliable deer killer." YOu need energy before you convert it, so it's NOT false. You're comparing apples to oranges. FOr any given bullet design energy DOES matter. It's simple physics. He was asking about killing at different RANGES, and the only thing that changes with changing range is energy, so that's going to be the determining factor, after controlling for the other variables. You might be able to kill a deer with a sharpened lawn dart in your back yard, but that's not really relevant to a 55 gr 223 at 400 meters. There, energy is insufficient to effect a kill most of the time regarless of bullet design. And, these things follow a gaussian probability function. We're not really concerned about what might happen with your 22 short on some extreme occasion, we're concerned with what happens MOST OF THE TIME given commonly encountered conditions. So YES, all other things being equal, it takes energy to kill, there's a bare minimum required, and it drops quickly below the required amount for a deer in a 223 beyond 200-300 yards. |
LMAO when I read your response. Nice one! 
|
As a practical matter, at rifle velocities we may assume the surface of the earth is flat and all objects dropped or fired horizontally will impact the surface in the same time interval. In theory however if the object is fired at a high enough velocity it will never hit the earth; but leave the planet. Anybody care? Just astronauts. Regards, Mild Bill |
I needed a good laugh and you gave me one. I haven't laughed that hard in a while. Thanks |
That would be a calf. MMMMM Veal. |
AR Sponsor