BATTLE OF LITTLE BIGHORN: WERE THE WEAPONS THE DECIDING FACTOR?
“Fascinating and thought provoking article. Addresses all our discussion points. Can’t attest to the research and scholarship behind it though it seems pretty solid.”
https://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor/?r [Bonemaker, post 75]
Pretty decent summary of many key points.
I kept hoping for an objective definition of “effective range.” The author seemed to use at least three different ones.
The most common definition from a military standpoint: “the maximum range at which hits can be expected.” It’s kind of fuzzy. How many hits, given repeated firing? One? Fifty? A hundred? Or is it the range beyond which the probability of obtaining a hit declines below a certain value?
It isn’t the range beyond which the bullet loses so much velocity that it can no longer cause serious wounds.
And it’s not solely an attribute of a specific cartridge. Rather, it’s very much a combination of cartridge, weapon, and operator. The 30-06 cartridge (30M2 153gr flat base military load) fired from the Garand rifle has an effective range of 600 yards. But when fired by a sniper from a suitable bolt-action rifle (say, a Winchester M70 Target model, 1963 vintage), it can deal serious injury beyond 1000 yards. And when fired in a burst from the M1919 Machine Gun, each single bullet can do serious damage well beyond that.