What is accurate?

Quote:
Yotekyllr,

Standard accuracy for the issue M16A2 is typically 2MOA+ not to mention the 7 pound trigger and I still managed to consistently qualify as expert on the army standard 40 target pop up range out to 300 meters. I would have loved a 1.5MOA rifle with a decent trigger, but even with the rifle I was issued I could hit silhouettes at 300. I stand by Pete and his novel! Of course I got out as an E5 after 5 years at Bragg, so you trump me there, but I see you are missing your Airborne wings on your displayed 201 file so that makes you a damned dirty leg which means you know nothing!!! Also may I add that Air Assault School was not the 10 hardest days in the Army for me so there!






And your point is.... Did I ever once say that an M16 shoots 1.5moa..You can hit them because they are PEOPLE sized targets.. My point falls with the people teaching BRM. My analagy of a 1.5 moa rifle comes into effect with hunting thats the point.. But, I can sure tell you that my issued M4's would hold MOA. As far as my displayed 201 goes, to each his own, If you question it then just say so...I will tell you that falling out of an airplane because you are told too doesn't mean dickk.. BTW whens the last time a unit jumped into combat, Grenada 25 yrs ago.. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif Have you ever jumped in combat? I have went in more than a dozen times on rope so what is your point once again...

Sorry for the distraction guys...
 
yotekyllr,
Man that is depressing to read about military marksmanship. Thought we did better than that. Scary, especially since we are at war and our guys in green have to hit the enemy to stay alive.

Not sure I understand your assessment on a 1.5 MOA shooter shooting a .5 MOA rifle having the rifle shade his shooting for the better. I suppose if the rifle shoots tighter groups the shooter's wider shots will be slightly less wide if the rifle shoots less wide to that same side. I am having trouble visualizing this, is this what you mean? To me a 1.5 MOA wobble zone is just that, and if you shoot on the edges of your wobble zone, then maybe a smaller group size will exceed your wobble zone by less?

Anyway, I do not mean to 'talk up' 1.5 MOA rifle accuracy. I merely wanted to point out that it is not a hopeless beast, and contrary to what one poster said, it is not unsuitable for big game. It is plenty accurate for deer inside of 300 yards. If you want smaller targets at further distances, of course you will want to go tighter. By the way, how do you do your desired 1.5 MOA shooting? Is that from prone with a sling, off bipod, rest, what?
 
Pete, the simplest way to make my point about your math being wrong is this:

Let's say YOU as a shooter are capable of shooting 1.5 MOA in perfect conditions If you shoot a zero MOA laser beam rifle (perfect accuracy) 100x at 100 yards, your group will measure 1.5" because that's how much you wobble. Some shots will be 3/4" high from the center, others 3/4" wide, or whatever direction you wobble. The group is 1.5".

If you shoot a 1.5 MOA rifle 100x, with your 1.5 MOA skills, your group will measure 3 inches! Your skills dictate that some of your shots WILL be off center as much as 3/4" in any given direction. So for example, you may have pulled the trigger while the crosshairs were pointed 3/4" high, still within your 1.5 MOA skill limit. The laser beam would have made a hole 3/4" high, but you're shooting a 1.5 MOA rifle. You gotta add another 3/4" in any direction, including high. So that shot could impact 1.5" above the bullseye. Or it could impact 1.5" low if that's where your wobble went. You have add your deficient skills to the deficiencies of your equipment.

Clearly, a less accurate rifle will keep you down.
 
If your rifle is only capable of 1.5 MOA even from a machine rest, then you have to Factor in your wobble on top of that. Nobody has zero wobble. Therefore nobody will ever be able to shoot 1.5 MOA or less from your rifle except out of PURE LUCK due to the random placement of your shots within that 1.5 MOA zone.
 
Quote:
yotekyllr,
Man that is depressing to read about military marksmanship. Thought we did better than that. Scary, especially since we are at war and our guys in green have to hit the enemy to stay alive.

Not sure I understand your assessment on a 1.5 MOA shooter shooting a .5 MOA rifle having the rifle shade his shooting for the better. I suppose if the rifle shoots tighter groups the shooter's wider shots will be slightly less wide if the rifle shoots less wide to that same side. I am having trouble visualizing this, is this what you mean? To me a 1.5 MOA wobble zone is just that, and if you shoot on the edges of your wobble zone, then maybe a smaller group size will exceed your wobble zone by less?

Anyway, I do not mean to 'talk up' 1.5 MOA rifle accuracy. I merely wanted to point out that it is not a hopeless beast, and contrary to what one poster said, it is not unsuitable for big game. It is plenty accurate for deer inside of 300 yards. If you want smaller targets at further distances, of course you will want to go tighter. By the way, how do you do your desired 1.5 MOA shooting? Is that from prone with a sling, off bipod, rest, what?




Yeah, thats what I was getting at I guess the wobble zone thing as they say, .5 moa rifle is corrupted but shooter input resulting in it being a 1moa outcome. This would further be compounded by a 1.5moa rifle turing into a 2 or 3 moa outcome after shooter input...lol I sure don't think a more accurate rifle hurts anything.. I do get your point and to be clear I'm not bashing the military. The story you related of the young Marine is all to common and I felt compelled to shed some light on why that occurs and its frequency.

My field shooting is almost always aided to some extent.. I only hunt deer with bow but for Coyotes its shooting stix, Antelope is usually stix or bipod, Prarie poodle types get the bipods or even a table.. and for me 1.5 is not even as good as I would like but that just means more practice. At the range I shoot from a rest with a rear bag for load development and with the old .308 shooting 700-1000yds I use bipod and rear bag in the prone position. Most of my range time with hunting rifles is sitting, shooting of off the sticks. I see no reason to shoot (for practice) differently than I would shoot that rifle in the field.. Some rifles do better than others relating to ergonomics but I am satisfied if they (or I) will shoot to that level. At times I will sprint to the 200yd mark and back then shoot for an even more realistic senerio.. (I only do that when nobadys around lol) People look at me wierd even when shooting sitting on the ground from stix when they are all on the benches..Off hand shooting obviously produce my worst groups but if the rifle is accurate I have a false comfort knowing its me and not it.. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
OK stiff neck, I see your point and agree. That is wobble zone + rifle group size. However I do not measure shooter skill that way. I go by actual group size. If my group from field position is 2 MOA, then I am a 2 MOA shooter. So by your example, with a 1.5 MOA hold + 1.5 MOA worst case rifle accuracy, I would call myself a 3 MOA shooter, because that is the group size that resulted from my efforts. My math is maybe OK, but my semantics are bad, or at least different. To me if I am a 1.5 MOA shooter that means that is the group size I can produce, NOT the tightness of my hold. My wobble zone is one thing, the groups I can produce are something else, and that is what I go by.
And yes this does include the capability of the rifle as well, so yes I agree that a more accurate rifle will help, but only to a point, in this case .75 MOA radius of error, which is mostly insignificant in the field. The difference it will make on a deer's shoulder at 200 yards will most likely be apparent to neither the deer nor the shooter. I guess I am talking practical field accuracy while you are talking absolute accuracy. In my mind, if it does not make a real difference in the field, then it is moot, even if you can demonstrate it on paper. That is the heart of my big disagreement with many of the rest of you.
 
Yotekyllr,

I did not mean to offend--more or less just poke fun at someone from a different unit--sorry that was interpretted wrong. My point with the M16A2 is that 2MOA and a bad trigger gets the job done when engaging silhouettes, meaning that you don't need a sub MOA rifle in all instances and that skill trumps equipment in many if not most instances.

As for the last time we jumped into combat--AFGHANISTAN!!!
US Army Rangers buddy--I had 4 guys from my company on that jump!!!

Dont believe me--just google it buddy!
 
I personally like to set my "gold standard" at .25 moa. That's never happened to me with an off the shelf rifle, but I've managed it (though not always) with some amateur smithing (pillar/glass bedding, floating, trigger, etc) and load development. Throw a custom barrel and some expert smithing (machinist work) into the equation and .25 moa is a pretty realistic goal. That is not to say that it's necessary to achieve that level of accuracy with every rifle, but since when do we only do what's necessary?

When I started shooting (early '60s) 1.5 moa was pretty much accepted as the gold standard for fine hunting rifles. That has changed somewhat since, and in truth there IS a degree of marketing hype in the manufacturers claims to accuracy, as many big game hunters aren't good enough shooters to properly utilize an accurate rifle.

On the other hand there is a much higher percentage of fine marksmen now than then, largely due to the increased popularity of long range varmint shooting as well as increased interest in long range competition (F Class didn't even exist in the '60s).

While Pete has a point that a accurate rifle isn't going to do you much good if you can't shoot, an accurate rifle will make a considerable difference to an expert (or better) marksman (which many of us are). The difference between a 2 moa and a .5 moa rifle is always going to be 1.5 moa, all else being equal, no matter who's shooting it, but...

If you have an 8 moa "wobble" in your stance/hold (not at all unusual with a casual once a year hunter), you'll shoot 10 moa with the 2 moa rifle and 8.5 moa with the .5 moa rifle. Either way you are going to be hit and miss on "deer sized" game past 80-100 yds, so you can legitimately say that the accuracy of the rifle didn't matter much. However...

If you can steady up and hold your "wobble" to 2 moa things change a lot. Now the accuracy of the rifle starts to make a BIG difference. With a 2 moa wobble and a 2 moa rifle you will shoot 4 moa, putting your effective range at ~ 200 yds for that deer. With the .5 moa rifle you are a 2.5 moa shooter and will extend your effective (deer) range to well past 300 yds.

I agree with Pete's stance that the skill set is equally as, or more important as a general principle, however an improvement in accuracy is an improvement in accuracy whether it derives from bettering shooting skills or bettering the rifle (though there's usally more room for improvement in the skills). The longer the range, and/or smaller the target, the more important accuracy of both the rifle and the shooter becomes.

Much of shooting IS mental, especially in competition, but the mental factor that makes a difference isn't a belief or confidence in your rifle (or yourself) so much as the ability to stay completely and totally mentally focused on every shot though the entire match (very difficult).
 
So in conclusion, many shooters are equipped beyond their ability, big deal, why does that stir you up so much? People like to buy the best they can afford, nothing new here. Better to have it and not use it than need it and wish you had made a better purchasing decision.

You can't go out and buy shooting skills to make you a better shooter, but you CAN go out and buy a more accurate rifle that WILL increase your accuracy to some degree, depending on your skill level. You may be over-equipped in relation to your ability, but so what? Most of us hope to improve, learn, and grow into the nice rifle we bought as we get better.

It would be foolish, in my opinion, to intentionally choose a 1.5 MOA rifle (because you don't "need" any more accuracy) when you could have gotten a 1/2 MOA rifle for the same price.
 
Good points Leon. Frankly the concept of .25 MOA for a non-benchrest/varmint/target rifle blows my feeble little mind. As I said above, that is fine for the "one-percenters" but IMHO wasted money for the general population. It sure would remove the rifle as a source of blame for a miss, though. Again, my main point is practical field accuracy for the average Joe Deerslayer, not highfalutin' toys for the maximum-accuracy crowd.

I do have one minor quibble, that is adding group size to shooter wobble. While this is true if you shoot a five or ten shot group (which allows multiple chances for your rifle to throw shots to opposite sides of your aim point), it does not hold true for one single shot. In this case the rifle can only be off in one direction, and the amount will be the radius of its error, not the diameter of its error, so for an individual shot the extra error is only half what we consider if we are looking at it from the perspective of group diameter. One does not (or should not!) shoot 'groups' on a deer's shoulder. The ONE shot you aim and fire is what counts. This means that a two-minute difference in total group size actually makes a one-minute maximum amount of deviation of the individual shot from where it would have gone otherwise. For really good shooters this may matter, especially on small targets or far away. For a guy already holding steady well within the kill zone of a deer or elk shoulder at 150 yards it is moot. At 400 yards on an antelope it is another story.

Also, your example assumes that the rifle will almost always be adding its error to the shooter's error. This will not be true on each individual shot, but only one out of every few shots. The shooter may pull one a little left, yet the rifle may throw it a little right (or high, or low). If you shoot enough shots then both shooter and rifle will err to the same side in all directions, which will produce the sum of rifle & shooter error as a group DIAMETER presumably centered on the aimpoint. For ONE shot, this actually has, I think, a less than even chance of happening, since the rifle will be erring its shots in random directions, same as the shooter. Any given shot has as much chance of erring (due to rifle inaccuracy) high as it does low or right or left. So if a shooter pulls one a little left, he probably has around a one in four chance of the rifle throwing its error left as well. And this is what takes place in the field - for one shot. So, it seems to me that any given shot does not necessarily sum both errors, and will only do so a minority of the time.

Consider this: My .243 shoots slightly over 1 MOA at 200 yards from the bench and sandbags (multiple 5-shot groups). From sitting w/tight loop sling I have a 3 MOA wobble and can shoot within the inner 2 MOA of that. By your math I should be always be getting slightly over 3 MOA (6+ inches). Yet with that rifle I have shot 2 or 3 5-shot groups under 3 inches (1.5 MOA) from sitting at 200, and when I shoot zero pairs from sitting at 200 (frequently, since the rifle's zero wanders all the time) they are more often than not within 1.5 MOA or less of each other. Now I have shot the occasional 6" pair or 3-shot group, but that has occurred at about a one-in-four rate.

So what does this mean? I will gladly admit I think you're a heck of a lot smarter than me, but my range results do not add up to your figures. Any ideas?
 
Once time during a running dear shoot we decided to walk up to the 50
yard line and shoot standing. To a man, poor shooters and great shooters, we
all shot worse scores at the 50 yard line than sitting at the 100. Just a point
to remember when out in the field.
 
This great thread inspired me to get out and test some
theories on accuracy. We all have different ideas, Ford
vs Chevy ect but I think the first cold bore shot is how
I rate a gun, like real world hunting we dont pre heat
barrels in the woods.

From a gun vice (Im hung over today), very calm day here
in WI, upper 30's maybe even 40 when shot, aprox 198 paces,
50gr Winchester Silvertip 223,Remington R15, 18" barrel:
http://sites.google.com/site/miscmicsforlinks/_/rsrc/1234125374241/Home/200yrdWin50grSilvertip.JPG
I honestly didnt expect to be this close, following rounds
drifted another 1/4" down and wind came in to the left.

I'm ashamed to post a picture of my freehand shots after
the those test shots...we'll just say any rabbit out
beyond 100yrds was safe to frolic in the sun.
 
Seems there are folks who care more about their personal position skills than their rifle's accuracy. They tend to shoot more from position than the bench.
There are folks who care more about their rifle's accuracy than their position skills. They seem to tend to shoot more from the bench.
There are folks who generate their rifle accuracy requirements from a combination of their best guess at their best range that their skill allows combined with the intended target size.
There are folks who only want more, more, more accuracy from their rifles, the most they can find.
And probably other categories I can't figure out yet.

Not too much common ground between the different types, it seems. What works for one is often unsuitable or irrelevant for another.
Me, I am more concerned with my skill than my rifle's capability, and use the target size/skill range method for determining how accurate my rifle needs to be. Others here are the opposite. You pays your money and you takes your choices.
 
while we are talking the wobble factor, how much is MOA at the end of the muzzle? would you believe .00696" so even if you can shoot a 3" group offhand at 100 yards thats pretty steady shooting.

and as far as hunting goes, groups are a moot point, the first cold bore shot on target is what your looking for. a couple of my rifles will shoot groups in the .2's, but back off to 800 yards you'll see the groups open dramaticly due to the different POI of the first and the next 2 shots.
RR
 
Quote:
I do have one minor quibble, that is adding group size to shooter wobble. While this is true if you shoot a five or ten shot group (which allows multiple chances for your rifle to throw shots to opposite sides of your aim point), it does not hold true for one single shot.



Actually it does hold true. If your total inaccuracy factor is 10", you have established that you will shoot a bunch of shots within a 10" circle. You can also expect that an individual shot will fall somewhere within that same sized circle. It may be exactly on the POA or it may be on the circumference or it may be anywhere in between, but (all else being equal) it will fall somewhere in the same area that a group of shots would cover.

By the way, as an extension of the scenario above where an individual shot may fall anywhere within the parameters of the group moa, those 3 shot groups you see advertised are statistically meaningless. I think it was Jack who came up with the truism that the only thing firing 3 shots tells you is that you made a loud noise three times. In order to gain any meaningful information from your range work you need to fire a statistically meaningful number of shots to establish a data set. I'll usually fire 4 10 shot groups if I'm really interested in doing a workup on a particular rifle.

Quote:
So, it seems to me that any given shot does not necessarily sum both errors, and will only do so a minority of the time.



That's absolutely true, it will not necessarily sum both factors, but as said above, you can expect the bullet to hit somewhere within the maximum expected deviation established by your testing.

Quote:
Consider this: My .243 shoots slightly over 1 MOA at 200 yards from the bench and sandbags (multiple 5-shot groups). From sitting w/tight loop sling I have a 3 MOA wobble and can shoot within the inner 2 MOA of that. By your math I should be always be getting slightly over 3 MOA (6+ inches). Yet with that rifle I have shot 2 or 3 5-shot groups under 3 inches (1.5 MOA) from sitting at 200, and when I shoot zero pairs from sitting at 200 (frequently, since the rifle's zero wanders all the time) they are more often than not within 1.5 MOA or less of each other. Now I have shot the occasional 6" pair or 3-shot group, but that has occurred at about a one-in-four rate.



You have to fix that "wandering zero" first before testing will mean anything.LOL

As previously pointed out, in this case you are describing a situation that falls well within the parameters your testing established. Testing is never going to establish the best groups you will ever see. Proper testing with a statistically significant number of rounds will give you an indication of the worst (extreme spread) you can reasonably expect.
 
I would have to argue Jacks truism on the 3 shot group as just making noise Leon. I use it all the time to check zero on my scopes after making any adjustments to the rifle or the scope, I have found it also is good for you mentaly the day before a coyote calling contest to fire a nice 3 shot group. Anyway the 3 shot group works well for me at these times.
 
Back
Top