A regular marine is not going to be able to engage at anything beyond 600m no matter what optic and rifle they use. It’s pure voodoo past 500m with military ball.

quote:

Originally posted by smithnsig:
A regular marine is not going to be able to engage at anything beyond 600m no matter what optic and rifle they use. It’s pure voodoo past 500m with military ball.

That’s what I would have thought, regardless of whether someone, somewhere, sometime, might have accomplished that feat,* and therefore my questions.

* I once knocked over a metallic silhouette javelina after two ranging shots at 300 meters with a handgun, but that doesn’t mean we should issue all the troops S&W model 29s for engagements up to that range.

Well, if they issue the M27 and retire the Squad Automatic Weapon, who's to say that they won't bring back a full-auto version of Volley Fire?

Yes, I'm kidding.

quote:

Originally posted by smithnsig:
A regular marine is not going to be able to engage at anything beyond 600m no matter what optic and rifle they use. It’s pure voodoo past 500m with military ball.

I think it's important that they can 'engage' / affect targets at that range - meaning they send rounds into that general vicinity. They won't be hitting point targets, but rounds will be hitting in the general vicinity.

I do agree that issue M4/M16 with Milspec ball ammo won't be knocking down soldiers with pinpoint shots, just due to the inherent accuracy of the weapons and ammo.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
I think it's important that they can 'engage' / affect targets at that range - meaning they send rounds into that general vicinity.

If “engage” refers merely to firing bullets in the general direction of a target, then I agree. But then that’s another reason why 8-power optical sights are not necessary for the purpose; any optic or even irons would be adequate. Some Mauser C96 (“Broomhandle”) pistols had tangent sights calibrated to 1000 meters for that purpose. Even Hi Power pistols were sometimes equipped to supposedly engage targets to 500 meters.

And although we haven’t had any more discussion about target identification at long ranges, scopesights, regardless of magnification, aren’t ideal for that purpose. I would much rather have a pair of Nikon 10× binoculars if that was my goal than any 1-8× sight I can imagine. When trying to locate and identify targets even snipers usually rely on supplemental optics such as spotting scopes rather than their sights, despite their being capable of much higher magnifications than 8×. Scopesights can be used for the purpose, of course, but they’re not ideal if that’s what it’s “about.”

But obviously no one has asked for my opinion—once again.

Well, if you see how soldiers / Marines are operating, they are often using their ACOGs to observe potential enemy movement and throw rounds their way.

While a rack M4 isn't going to be terribly effective at 600M+, I've seen plenty of video of the guys trying to do it in OEF with ACOGs. Not a lot of binos / spotting scopes seen in those and I'm sure it's more kit they don't want to carry, or more stuff for Joe Grunt to break or lose.

Not saying it's right or correct, but often in conflict you do what you can & have to, not what is perfect.

These discussions about what the military could/should do are mental … exercises, but I enjoy the thinking that goes into them. I will also be watching this subject with great interest in the future. Aimpoint sights are among the most durable imaginable, but my agency has a box of ones that were well and thoroughly broken in military use. If someone develops a soldier-proof 1-8× optic, it could be a benefit to the rest of us shooters as well.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Well, if you see how soldiers / Marines are operating, they are often using their ACOGs to observe potential enemy movement and throw rounds their way.

While a rack M4 isn't going to be terribly effective at 600M+, I've seen plenty of video of the guys trying to do it in OEF with ACOGs. Not a lot of binos / spotting scopes seen in those and I'm sure it's more kit they don't want to carry, or more stuff for Joe Grunt to break or lose.

Not saying it's right or correct, but often in conflict you do what you can & have to, not what is perfect.

This is a good point and to expand on it, I would say that being able to identify actual threats is very important. I believe in many ways, the rules of engagement for the military is very close to rules of engagement for LE. Being able to see and identify faces, weapons and clothes has become as important for a grunt in an infantry platoon as it is for a patrol officer on the street. The more intel you can gather the more effective you can be. Also these scopes will likely outlast the current rifle system, so maybe the new rifle will have a longer max effective range. As every Marine can attest, accurate hits to 500 meters is rather easy with open sights and a standard issue rifle. 600 plus with optics is not a great stretch.