The large calibur sniper rifle that the Canadian's use is the bolt-action McMillian Tac-50 and not the semi-automatic Barret M82 that the U.S and other nations use. The standard ammunition used by the Tac-50 are AMAX Match .50 rounds.

Well that was random....

I wouldn't say that they would be useless, just uneffective. The effective range of a 5.56mm is probably 300 m but the round will travel much farther, just not with alot of accuracy.


hrxll

In Marine Boot camp alone the recruits qualify with targets at 500 meters with iron sites on the M16-A2. The accuracy was very good at 500 meters. If someone was really good with the M-16A2 they could hit someone at 800 meters.

[edit on 4/8/04 by AlexofSkye]

Well in the british army we were expected to hit targets on a 600 metre range using 5.56 and the pathetic sa80 small arms rifle. The only thing that causes a problem though is wind. even the lighest breeze at that range with such a small round throws it completely off course.

In the battle field you are not going to hit something at 600-800 meters, its not going to happen. Most open battlefields you have all sorts of weapon systems that can hit that far it is not necessary for the individual solider to try and hit something in the desert 800 meters away with the M-16. In urban combat you are not even going to get a chance to hit something 800 meters away. It is good for soldiers to be able to hit targets that far but it is not necessary to design a new bullet for the rifles that can be accurate at those ranges IMHO.

I totally agree. I think that they used to make us try the 600 metre range and as a result it would make us a lot better on the 200-300 metre range thats the only way i can work it out also firing on such a range is a good learner for windage and aiming off although at 600 metres in moderate wind you had to aim about 6 targets off to even have a chance of hitting the target. I would say the average range on the battlefield for a soldier and his rifle would be approx 100-200 metres.