|
Rexee, you are being far more abusive than I was. I wasn't intending to demean Spoon, I just disagreed with his terminology. I tend to argue passionately but NEVER with malice. You are intending to be nasty....
****
Spoon, perhaps it is matter of Yank terms and Aussie terms. I think we are saying the same thing.
In US terms, maximum effective range usually means the range at which a bullet will be "effective" or cause serious injury or death. It assumes the bullet hits the target, of course, but not that it was an aimed shot.
Up until mid-WWI, as you probably know, Enfield rifles had "volley sights" that allowed a group of soldiers to fire very long distances at groups of enemy soldiers with the hope of hitting them with plunging fire. Even at long range beyond what we would consider "aimed fire" the .303 rounds were within their effective range in terms of causing wounds.
By contrast, the M1 and M2 US carbines had an effective range of not much more than 100 yards in Korea because the padded clothing of the Chinese soldier was sufficient to prevent any serious injury from the .30 carbine round even with "aimed fire."
I believe you are saying that it means "likely to hit where aimed," which is different. I think your definition of "effective range" include the liklihood of both hitting the target and causing intended injury.
But it appears, again, we are saying the same thing with different terms.
I would write it off to semantics.
And again, I apologize if my post (I don't have a copy of it or I would send it to you) appeared to be a personal attack That never was intended. Often the printed word can appear to have a harsh tone that the spoken word does not.
Again, sri for causing a dust-up over this.
Out here.
ttt
|