Tweet
In RL if I had a rifle I was familiar with (the SLR would be first choice in my case) and a man-sized target was static or moving pretty much directly towards or away from me (as in, not a lot of lateral left/right movement) I'd definitely be taking shots at 100m. And I'd expect to be hitting with most shots too, assuming I'd zeroed the iron sights.
-
sigpic "It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli -
Just bear in mind that article is written by good 'ol "M113 Gavin Nutboy" Sparks, so while it's an interesting read, should be taken with a multi-megaton sized grain of salt.Originally posted by Cdnwolf View Post"The use of force is always an answer to problems. Whether or not it's a satisfactory answer depends on a number of things, not least the personality of the person making the determination. Force isn't an attractive answer, though. I would not be true to myself or to the people I served with in 1970 if I did not make that realization clear."
— David DrakeComment
-
Studies showed that the average combat range in WW2 in Europe was 300-400m hence the adoption of lower powered ammunition by NATO and the WP. Interestingly modern experience which is more desert or mountain based seems to be longer with significant urban combat that is much shorter - implying the SMG/heavier rifle would be more appropriate!!!Comment
-
As a "friend" who served in Aden, Yemen, Northern Ireland and London put it.
"In the middle east the air is so clear you can see for miles."
As an Avid backpacker in the Trinity Alps. I can honestly say that spotting fellow backpackers at distances of over 1,000m just depends on your line of sight. Even deer can be easy to spot if they are in a clearing.
Basically if you are in an area with clear air, accommodating terrain and a lack of obscuring vegetation you can see quite a distance.Comment
-
oh and a fun little calculator I found to give an estimate on how far a person could see if they were on clear flat terrain.
Comment
Comment