Ol' Paulie Wrote:How does this compare to 5.56 which many say is 450m effective
Paul,
Depends what your definition of effective is.
F Class shoots .223 to 1,000yards in their competition matches. To them 1K yds is 'effective', although they are only punching holes in a target. If we are talking about '5.56', then it implies we are talking about shooting humans in combat (5.56x45 is the NATO designate for a military cartridge). The humane expectations of hunting are subordinated to the pragmatism of war, and any rules countries may be signatory to, or at least abide by. The definition of 'effective' is different to hunting animals with a .223; it is more about taking the enemy out of battle and wounding might be just as effective as killing. For hunting animals we prefer not to wound, so the same rifle's max effective range will be different, no doubt less. And it also depends what animal you are shooting.
I have heard 200-250M is the max effective range for 5.56mm, but again it depends on the scenario. Is it M262 from a 20" barrel, or SS109/M885 from a 14.4" barrel? One goes further than the other and they have different end results.
The Grendel is like a .223 on steroids, you can add another 200M to the max effective range, but range alone is only one factor in the definition of 'effective'.
Distances that define effective are benchmarks. Militaries for example refer to the expectation of the gun and ammunition in the hands of the average shooter. In our case, in a hunting scenario we refer to ourselves only. How effective are we as individuals, in humanely dispatching what we intend to kill.