I'm just going to say it

[LittleLebowski]

I don't need a 1MOA carbine for nearly anything. Whew! Glad that I got that off of my chest, thanks for listening :)

[jeep45238]

Hell, I’m good with 3-4 moa - point of diminishing returns is about there for my budget and purposes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LittleLebowski]

I remember the online furor when my brother said that during the Second Battle of Fallujah, all he needed was 2MOA out of his SR-25 sniper rifle and the rifle did that easily for him :D

He's the sniper behind the SR-25 at 1:50 in this video.


https://youtu.be/6VbLK88bWGM?t=1m50s

[Grey]

I don't need a 1MOA carbine for nearly anything. Whew! Glad that I got that off of my chest, thanks for listening :)Gonna get you kilt in da streets. 0.5 moa or nothing! The [emoji23][emoji23]

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[LittleLebowski]

I shot this 11 round (or so) group from the prone at 100 yards in a Kyle Defoor adv carbine class. For a 4MOA red dot, 16" carbine, and decades-old Soviet surplus 5.45x39mm ammo, I was very happy.

https://i.imgur.com/nvC1zFa.jpg

[holmes168]

I remember the online furor when my brother said that during the Second Battle of Fallujah, all he needed was 2MOA out of his SR-25 sniper rifle and the rifle did that easily for him :D

He's the sniper behind the SR-25 at 1:50 in this video.


https://youtu.be/6VbLK88bWGM?t=1m50s

This video brought back memories- I was part of the little talked about part 1 in fallujah when some Mattis guy was in charge.

[Beat Trash]

I agree that I don't need a 1 MOA carbine for anything.

But I happen to own and use a factory build DDV7 carbine that is used as my Patrol Rifle at work. This gun around 1 MOA on most days and I won't throw the gun away for being too accurate.

To be honest, I've had 6 Colt 6920's pass through my hands over the last few years, most now belong to my kids or step-kids. None of them were MOA guns, but every one of them were more than accurate for LE Patrol work or personal defense.

[willie]

It's good to see you post again, beat trash. I used to read your posts on another forum. What can you share with us about your dept's issued equipment, good or bad?

[TCFD273]

I remember the online furor when my brother said that during the Second Battle of Fallujah, all he needed was 2MOA out of his SR-25 sniper rifle and the rifle did that easily for him :D

He's the sniper behind the SR-25 at 1:50 in this video.


https://youtu.be/6VbLK88bWGM?t=1m50s

2moa hits a man in the chest at 800 all day

As someone who spends way too much time and money shooting long range the whole my rifle is .5-.3-1.0 moa thing drives me insane.

99 x’s out of 100, it’s the trigger puller not the rifle.

Sure I can shoot .5 when I’m working up a load, shooting from prone, and take a lot of time building my position. But when I sprint hills, do 10 burpees then jump behind my rig and only have 20sec to get a hit (training for mountain hunting) I’m no where close to .5

And all this worrying about 10ths of an inch doesn’t mean jacksh$t if you miss your wind call.

I do KD4’s 200yd rundown carbine drill frequently....I’m def not 1 moa. Hahahaha!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TCFD273]

And.....1” at 100 doesn’t mean anything to me, or anyone who shoots for precision.

Standard Deviation is a thing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Casual Friday]

From the bench my AR's will shoot tighter groups than my AK's.

From the shoulder I see no real difference.

[GJM]

I thought all AR carbines on the internet are 1 moa or better.

[critter]

I'm just going to say it. I don't really like AR carbines. AR Rifles Rule the Universe! (ducking out quickly, going back to the 60's/70's)

[RevolverRob]

I don't need an MOA carbine either. My longest shot right now would be ~40 feet.

Doesn't mean I don't want an MOA carbine. :cool:

[Casual Friday]

I thought all AR carbines on the internet are 1 moa or better.

Oh shit, yeah. My WASR is sub MOA all day long with Wolf reloads.

[TCFD273]

I thought all AR carbines on the internet are 1 moa or better.

I would venture most of mine are with Black Hills or precision handloads....but I don’t care. I have an SPR I hand load for, its a shooter for sure.

I zero my fighting guns with duty ammo, and my training guns with 55 fmj and leave it alone unless I think something is off. Most of the time, it was just me missing [emoji15]

[Guerrero]

Oh shit, yeah. My WASR is sub MOA all day long with Wolf reloads.

:rolleyes:

[Kyle Reese]

I shot this 11 round (or so) group from the prone at 100 yards in a Kyle Defoor adv carbine class. For a 4MOA red dot, 16" carbine, and decades-old Soviet surplus 5.45x39mm ammo, I was very happy.

https://i.imgur.com/nvC1zFa.jpg

I was in that class with you. Good times!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Mike C]

I’m fine with being the unpopular one and saying no I don’t need a carbine or whatever that is 1-1.5 MOA but I wouldn’t be any worse for wear if I did.

I totally get the argument but I wouldn’t ditch a gun that shot 1.5 or better. Having equipment that is more capable/more inherently accurate aids in reducing margin of error in less than optimal conditions. Not that it makes up for shitty marksmanship/bad wind call etc. but it helps. When your ass is on the line no one is wishing their gun was less accurate or they had fewer rounds on tap. I always thought/wished my shit was lighter but that was about it and certainly never the latter.

[Casual Friday]

I’m fine with being the unpopular one and saying no I don’t need a carbine or whatever that is 1-1.5 MOA but I wouldn’t be any worse for wear if I did.

I totally get the argument but I wouldn’t ditch a gun that shot 1.5 or better. Having equipment that is more capable/more inherently accurate aids in reducing margin of error in less than optimal conditions. Not that it makes up for shitty marksmanship/bad wind call etc. but it helps. When your ass is on the line no one is wishing their gun was less accurate or they had fewer rounds on tap. I always thought/wished my shit was lighter but that was about it and certainly never the latter.

I think you missed our points.

[Mike C]

Casual Friday, probably... wouldn't be the first time.

ETA:
What specifically was your point? I do find there is an appreciable difference between a rifle of greater accuracy vs one that is not. When you are talking hallway distances okay fine I get that, (or maybe I don't get the point of this discussion at all). When we are talking ranges of greater than 100 meters particularly from non conventional or unsupported shooting positions and standing there is a difference. I am not trying to be contrarian but I'd like to understand. If it's sarcasm maybe my meter is broken this morning but an argument for a lesser accurate carbine designed for use at intermediate ranges seems pointless.

[Casual Friday]

Casual Friday, probably... wouldn't be the first time.

ETA:
What specifically was your point? I do find there is an appreciable difference between a rifle of greater accuracy vs one that is not. When you are talking hallway distances okay fine I get that, (or maybe I don't get the point of this discussion at all). When we are talking ranges of greater than 100 meters particularly from non conventional or unsupported shooting positions and standing there is a difference. I am not trying to be contrarian but I'd like to understand. If it's sarcasm maybe my meter is broken this morning but an argument for a lesser accurate carbine designed for use at intermediate ranges seems pointless.

We're not arguing for less accurate rifles, at least I'm not. I've found that the difference between a 2.5" rifle vs a 4.5" rifle from a rest doesn't translate over when firing from the shoulder, for me. Two Sunday's ago I took my AR and AK to the range and the group sizes from 50-100 were indiscernible. The AR is nothing special, a PSA lower with a 16" BCM upper. The AK is a Romanian G kit with the chrome lined combloc barrel. From the bench the AR shoots groups half the size.

[Mike C]

Gotcha, I understand differences in shooter capability, needs, etcetera. Guess I'm just not picking up what others are putting down this morning. Thanks for the clarification.

[LittleLebowski]

OP was not saying that I'd not take a more accurate rifle. It's fairly clear.

[Mike C]

OP was not saying that I'd not take a more accurate rifle. It's fairly clear.

Yeah, wasn't clear but I've got that now. Let's chalk it up to cognitive issues this morning. Let the sarcasm resume.

[TiroFijo]

I don't need a 1MOA carbine for nearly anything. Whew! Glad that I got that off of my chest, thanks for listening :)

Hey LL!! ...next thing you are going to say "I don't need a pistol that groups into 1.5" @ 25 yds for nearly anything" ;)

[45dotACP]

I suspect it is similar for a hunting rifle. 1.5-3.0 MOA groups are sufficient to kill game at any reasonably ethical range.

It's whether or not you can shoot that well from a field position that will determine your success.

All things being equal, a more accurate rifle is better. Of course.

But not all things are equal are they now? There is of course, much better variety in picking a suitable rifle nowadays.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Maple Syrup Actual]

I don't need a fantastically accurate carbine all that much, but my general experience is that the more accurate a rifle is, the more I will probably enjoy it.

But then, that's only true if it's also extremely reliable. I have a very small, very accurate carbine that is not as reliable as I would like and until I get the reliability issue resolved, I won't enjoy it much at all.

[NH Shooter]

I don't need a 1MOA carbine for nearly anything. Whew! Glad that I got that off of my chest, thanks for listening :)

Got me to thinking about what defines a "carbine" and how nebulous that definition can be;

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/12/jeremy-s/carbine-vs-rifle-defined/

In terms of precision, most of us realize that a shorter barrel is generally "stiffer" than a longer one (all other factors equal) which can actually improve precision.

In regards to the AR platform, I'm not sure where the dividing line is between a carbine and a rifle. Perhaps it defined as much by the length of the gas tube as the length of the barrel? Or are the only true AR "rifles" ones with at least a 20" barrel?

Does the carbine definition carry with it the expectation (and acceptance) of lesser precision capability?

In my feeble mind, the "carbine attributes" I appreciate the most are lighter weight and improved ease-of-carry. If it can also provide the same level of precision I would expect in a rifle, and can be fitted with a trigger and sighting system to fully leverage that precision, my reasons for carrying the longer/heavier rifle are mostly nullified. In combination with effective ammo, this IMO defines the modern AR.

[MistWolf]

When the M16 came out, it was considered a carbine.

[SecondsCount]

I don't need a 1MOA carbine for nearly anything. Whew! Glad that I got that off of my chest, thanks for listening :)

Well good for you.

For me, it kind of goes back to the "do all carbine" thread. I do everything with mine...engage cardboard at 10 yards, varmint hunt at 250, and have shot steel at 1000.

I want the most accurate carbine with an emphasis on reliability.

[PNWTO]

If I care about MOA then it'll be bolt gun. I have yet to see a "sub-MOA" AR shoot as such offhand or in any realistic position besides supported prone.

For a hunting rifle in Western states I need the ability, while fatigued, plug about a 8" vital zone within 400-500yds from a field position or shooting off a pack, my current battery of Tikkas surpass this by leaps and bounds.

[LockedBreech]

I see the point of MOA boasting in long range precision shooting sports and that’s about it.

To me it’s kinda the rifle version of getting into the weeds arguing about the effectiveness and precise expansion and penetration of Gold Dot 9mm and HST 9mm. It’s a easy to remember, talking-point ready boast about your equipment so you don’t need to worry about skill development.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[critter]

...
Does the carbine definition carry with it the expectation (and acceptance) of lesser precision capability?
...


Not to me. As has been debated ad nauseum, inherent precision requires a variety of factors -- ammo weight/charge/consistency, optimal barrel twist rate for the ammo (or vice versa), whether chrome lining, manufacturing tolerances, among others. A standard issue milspec AR, regardless of length, is not something I'd consider to be a 'precision' weapon though acceptably precise shots can be consistently made with it within the parameters it was designed to function. I wouldn't expect it to deliver consistent sub MOA precision without some non milspec 'tweaking.'



In my feeble mind, the "carbine attributes" I appreciate the most are lighter weight and improved ease-of-carry. If it can also provide the same level of precision I would expect in a rifle, and can be fitted with a trigger and sighting system to fully leverage that precision, my reasons for carrying the longer/heavier rifle are mostly nullified. In combination with effective ammo, this IMO defines the modern AR.

No doubt the modern/common usage of 'AR' invokes the mental image of an 'M4'. And lopping of 4 inches of barrel and shortening the stock makes it more suitable in most roles its required to fill. I simply love the Original Recipe over the Extra Crispy :cool:

[TCFD273]

For a hunting rifle in Western states I need the ability, while fatigued, plug about a 8" vital zone within 400-500yds from a field position or shooting off a pack, my current battery of Tikkas surpass this by leaps and bounds.

^^^^^ This

I picked up a Tikka CTR to play with in January. Surprised was an understatement.

I shot a 4” group at 600yds the first range trip post load development to work out my dope.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180427/fac52be6d1add64865a400b48c1f4c59.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TCFD273]

Well good for you.

For me, it kind of goes back to the "do all carbine" thread. I do everything with mine...engage cardboard at 10 yards, varmint hunt at 250, and have shot steel at 1000.

I want the most accurate carbine with an emphasis on reliability.

I have an 18” SPR build that I’ve hit steel at 1k with, but not with any precision. Anything past 750-800 gets dicey.

I’ve view AR’s in these catergories:
11.5”-200yd gun (red dot)
14.5”-500yd gun (1-6)

Anything beyond 500 I need a different tool.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hufnagel]

this sounds so much like the precision/accuracy debate thread over on THR, that I had to check the site banner to make sure I wasn't there :D

[arcfide]

And then there are people like me who use an ARX-100 and shoot them out to 500 - 600m with irons just for fun.

[Unobtanium]

I don't need a 1MOA carbine for nearly anything. Whew! Glad that I got that off of my chest, thanks for listening :)

Most people who claim to have a 1MOA carbine, don't. That boast comes, typically, from a 3-shot once in a life-time group that is probably 3 fliers aligning with fate. Just like most people didn't have 12 second mustang GT's a decade ago, but since they raced their friend in their Camaro on the street and lost by like 1 car, and some camaro's in 1998-2002 dipped into the 12's...they claim their GT...

[TCFD273]

Most people who claim to have a 1MOA carbine, don't. That boast comes, typically, from a 3-shot once in a life-time group that is probably 3 fliers aligning with fate. Just like most people didn't have 12 second mustang GT's a decade ago, but since they raced their friend in their Camaro on the street and lost by like 1 car, and some camaro's in 1998-2002 dipped into the 12's...they claim their GT...

Yep.

When I was active on a long range forum years ago, the standard was:

5, 5 shot groups with a time standard. Avg the 5 groups and that is what rifle with you behind are capable of.

The other part of the equation is gas guns are harder to shoot accurately than bolt guns. You have to drive the gun more, more follow through and your overall technique must be spot on.

I can avg .6 with my Accuracy International 6.5 Creed when i take my time. I’m sure other shooters could do better but that is what I’m capable of.

Now, a couple of years ago I had a gas .308 gun that came with a target with a 5 shot group. It was a ragged hole. I’ve toured the factory it came from and watched those groups being shot. So the rifle was most definitely capable of it, I could never reproduce those groups though. I probably averaged a hair over 0.75 with that gun.

All that being said, go from standing to prone and shoot 10 rounds at a B8 @100yds in 15sec or less with your AR. A 90 or above is awesome, and all you need to worry about. I believe that is a good rifleman standard for an all purpose AR.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Unobtanium]

Yep.

When I was active on a long range forum years ago, the standard was:

5, 5 shot groups with a time standard. Avg the 5 groups and that is what rifle with you behind are capable of.

The other part of the equation is gas guns are harder to shoot accurately than bolt guns. You have to drive the gun more, more follow through and your overall technique must be spot on.

I can avg .6 with my Accuracy International 6.5 Creed when i take my time. I’m sure other shooters could do better but that is what I’m capable of.

Now, a couple of years ago I had a gas .308 gun that came with a target with a 5 shot group. It was a ragged hole. I’ve toured the factory it came from and watched those groups being shot. So the rifle was most definitely capable of it, I could never reproduce those groups though. I probably averaged a hair over 0.75 with that gun.

All that being said, go from standing to prone and shoot 10 rounds at a B8 @100yds in 15sec or less with your AR. A 90 or above is awesome, and all you need to worry about. I believe that is a good rifleman standard for an all purpose AR.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I average 3 10 shot groups ar 100 yards, fired consecutively, without discount for fliers or anything else. I average around 1.4moa for chrome lined ARs I have owned.

[rob_s]

Gotcha, I understand differences in shooter capability, needs, etcetera. Guess I'm just not picking up what others are putting down this morning. Thanks for the clarification.

If you aren’t fluent in internet snark, it’s easy to miss the point of the OP and many of the follow-on posts.

[Rich@CCC]

I for one, need all the help I can get...

[Casual Friday]

Most people who claim to have a 1MOA carbine, don't. That boast comes, typically, from a 3-shot once in a life-time group that is probably 3 fliers aligning with fate.

Quoted for truth. I've shot a silver dollar size group from 100 with my Romanian AK and Wolf ammo on a couple different occasions and chalked it up to what you described above. I tell everyone my AK's are 4 MOA guns cause that's what they shoot 99% of the time.

[RevolverRob]

I don't need a fantastically accurate carbine all that much, but my general experience is that the more accurate a rifle is, the more I will probably enjoy it.

But then, that's only true if it's also extremely reliable. I have a very small, very accurate carbine that is not as reliable as I would like and until I get the reliability issue resolved, I won't enjoy it much at all.

Inaccurate and broken guns are boring.

I like accuracy. In particularly, I like the challenge of trying to shoot accurately, which is a difficult thing to do. It requires repeatable movements, posture, and mental acuity to not fuck it up right proper. The longer the range, the harder it becomes, but even at short ranges accuracy can be difficult to acquire on a personal level. Which is why I like mechanically precise ("accurate") weapons. The more precise a gun is, the less I worry about challenges to my accuracy coming from the tool and instead they are coming from me.

That silly saying, "It's the Indian, not the arrow." Not if the arrow shaft isn't trued, balanced, and the fletching is poorly held into place. Then you might as well be throwing lightweight pointed rocks at someone. But there is also the reality that, scrapping an arrow relatively true, having a decent balance, and good fletching held into place, can be more than enough given the range and target. Basically, there were good arrows, long before we had laser measured, machine cut and balanced carbon fiber shafts.

That said, the more variables one can remove from the equation of shooting accurately, the 1) easier it becomes, 2) the more likely you are to see increased results. Mario Andretti could outdrive me in a Toyota Camry, but he can't outdrive Sebastian Vettel in his F1 car simultaneously.

[Casual Friday]

That silly saying, "It's the Indian, not the arrow." Not if the arrow shaft isn't trued, balanced, and the fletching is poorly held into place. Then you might as well be throwing lightweight pointed rocks at someone. But there is also the reality that, scrapping an arrow relatively true, having a decent balance, and good fletching held into place, can be more than enough given the range and target. Basically, there were good arrows, long before we had laser measured, machine cut and balanced carbon fiber shafts.

An arrow to ammo comparison would be much better than an arrow to rifle comparison. I'm curious as to how much archery experience you have? What exactly do you mean balanced? A properly built arrow will have between 10-25% of the weight forward of center (FOC), an arrow that would balance in the center wouldn't fly worth a shit.

Carbon arrows were never a means of making a more accurate and consistent arrow, light weight and more durability in certain conditions are what they bring to the table. If you want straightness and consistency, aluminum arrows are much more so than carbons.

[NH Shooter]

Having been through a few BCM uppers, I had one (https://www.bravocompanyusa.com/BCM-14-5-Mid-Length-Upper-Receiver-Group-p/bcm-urg-mid-14.htm) that was be lucky to hold 6 MOA, which was returned to BCM and exchanged for a 16" SS410 HB with a Larue quad handguard that was truly a 1 MOA (or better) upper with a LPV attached but too heavy for my liking, to my current 16" ELW BFH KMR-13 that will consistently hold 1.5 MOA or better with my favorite factory loads. It is by far my favorite of all the uppers I've tried.

While a 3 MOA carbine certainly has utility, I'm not likely to settle for one when getting significantly better is not that difficult.

[MistWolf]

An arrow to ammo comparison would be much better than an arrow to rifle comparison.

Exactly

[RevolverRob]

An arrow to ammo comparison would be much better than an arrow to rifle comparison. I'm curious as to how much archery experience you have? What exactly do you mean balanced? A properly built arrow will have between 10-25% of the weight forward of center (FOC), an arrow that would balance in the center wouldn't fly worth a shit.

Carbon arrows were never a means of making a more accurate and consistent arrow, light weight and more durability in certain conditions are what they bring to the table. If you want straightness and consistency, aluminum arrows are much more so than carbons.

I'm tracking you here, but I feel you might be over-thinking the comparison. The point I was making is - we argue that it is the operator, not the tool, but if the tool isn't sufficient then it may actually be the tool, not the operator.

I suppose this is one reason I like to avoid analogy in discussions like this.

Basically, depending on the needs one may or may not require a 1 or sub-moa carbine for any purpose. On the other hand, mechanically precise ("accurate") guns allow one to recognize that other variables in the equation are what is wrong with accuracy (e.g., the shooter, the ammo, or the inability to accurate gauge conditions [which is also part of the shooter]).

[TCFD273]

Inaccurate and broken guns are boring.

I like accuracy. In particularly, I like the challenge of trying to shoot accurately, which is a difficult thing to do. It requires repeatable movements, posture, and mental acuity to not fuck it up right proper. The longer the range, the harder it becomes, but even at short ranges accuracy can be difficult to acquire on a personal level. Which is why I like mechanically precise ("accurate") weapons. The more precise a gun is, the less I worry about challenges to my accuracy coming from the tool and instead they are coming from me.



What SD’s are you getting with your carbine. I ask because I’m willing to bet your 1moa rifle isn’t 1moa out past 100yds.

I don’t think shooting accurately is very difficult. I’ve coached many people, a lot of them inexperienced shooters, and had them shooting fairly well...accuracy wise. Recently took my wife’s friend to the range, she’s never shot a rifle. With my rifle, loads, and 30min of coaching/dry fire she was hitting a 12x18” plate at 1000yds repeatedly. (Shooting at distance is more about the spotter and wind calls if you can break a trigger cleanly).


I think worrying about 1moa rifles is trivial if you aren’t shooting handloads with premium bullets or premium ammo every range trip. As I stated earlier, I’m sure my carbines will shoot 1moa with handloads or premium ammo...but I don’t practice with it, and I don’t really care that much. I periodically check function and zero on my go to guns, last week I shot a .75” group at 50 with 10 shots just reconfirming zero with my defensive ammo.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SecondsCount]

What SD’s are you getting with your carbine. I ask because I’m willing to bet your 1moa rifle isn’t 1moa out past 100yds.



Why wouldn't it be? If MOA is a unit to measure angle, what would cause the angle to change?

[TCFD273]

Why wouldn't it be? If MOA is a unit to measure angle, what would cause the angle to change?


Changes in velocity will cause vertical stringing.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TCFD273]

Why wouldn't it be? If MOA is a unit to measure angle, what would cause the angle to change?

Now that I have time for a better reply:

During load development, it’s not uncommon to be able to shoot decent groups with ammo with velocities varying up to 150fps. I no longer shoot groups with initial load development, honestly I don’t even need a target to find a load I want to work with, or match factory ammo. I just look for pressure flat spots, then play with seating depth to get it to group. Example- Prime ammo shoots exceptionally well (low SD’s) in one of my guns and Federal GMM shoots well in another.

Ammo plays a huge role in “precision” shooting. Once you have the fundamentals, great ammo can make almost any modern production rifle shoot very well.

I would rather have a rifle ammo combo that shot 1moa with single digit SD’s than a 0.5moa rifle ammo combo that had SD’s in the 20’s.

If we’re are talking about hitting IPSC size targets out to 400/500yds that doesn’t require anything special ammo/rifle wise. But in this thread people are posting about accuracy and precision...that’s a different ball game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Trukinjp13]

Deleted


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SecondsCount]

....

Ammo plays a huge role in “precision” shooting. Once you have the fundamentals, great ammo can make almost any modern production rifle shoot very well.

.....


I agree that ammunition choice plays a part in accuracy, no matter what the distance.

The question I was asking was in regards to Minute Of Angle. 1 MOA at 100 yards is equal to 1.047 inches and at 1000 yards is 10.47 inches. If the gun is capable of putting 5 or 10 shots inside of an inch at 100, why wouldn't it be able to put that group inside of 10" at 1000? I realize that there are factors such as ammo, wind, scope capability, and of course the shooter, but if the inherent accuracy of the carbine is there then why not?

By the way, a 77 Nosler Custom Competition bullet launched from an 18" AR, still has enough energy to go all the way through a gallon milk jug at 1030 yards :)

[TCFD273]

I agree that ammunition choice plays a part in accuracy, no matter what the distance.

The question I was asking was in regards to Minute Of Angle. 1 MOA at 100 yards is equal to 1.047 inches and at 1000 yards is 10.47 inches. If the gun is capable of putting 5 or 10 shots inside of an inch at 100, why wouldn't it be able to put that group inside of 10" at 1000? I realize that there are factors such as ammo, wind, scope capability, and of course the shooter, but if the inherent accuracy of the carbine is there then why not?

By the way, a 77 Nosler Custom Competition bullet launched from an 18" AR, still has enough energy to go all the way through a gallon milk jug at 1030 yards :)

Wind and ammo are huge...wind being the biggest issue.

Do you shoot long range?

Just ran some numbers with my Ballistic software and MK262 ammo

Ok, let’s take your 1moa gun-

An SD of 25 at 1000yds will give you a vertical spread of 16”. If your shooting a 12x18 plate at 1000 and hold center, you could very easily miss and think it was you or the gun...nope it’s your store bought MATCH AMMO.

Now let’s take your 1moa rifle at 1000yds and give it an SD of 0 but let’s say you missed your wind call by 2mph, that’s pretty easy to do. You held 10 but it’s actually 12mph. Same 12x18 plate, center hold, you missed by 19” off the plate.

I know I’m getting way off into the weeds here, but I’ll reiterate....so many things go into shooting accurately. Just talking about rifles is similar to talking about buying a new pistol or trigger so you’ll be a better shooter. Doesn’t work that way. It’s a package deal...shooter, ammo and rifle






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[farscott]

I like the MOA concept for adjusting POA/POI as it can be done with two circles, but I do not like the description of a gun "shooting within a MOA". Here is my whiny, pedantic reasoning.

For elevation, I can use a circle with a radius that starts from my shooting location and ends at the target with the circle being vertical to align with the elevation adjustment of my scope. If the POI is 1.047" low at 100 yards, I can adjust the scope exactly 1 minute (60 minutes in a degree and 360 degrees in a circle).

For windage, I can do the same except the circle is horizontal and aligned with the horizontal markings in my scope. If POI is 1.047" left at 100 yards, I can adjust the scope 1 minute and be on target. Works just fine and makes sense as a minute is a measure, in this case, of angular subtension.

But if my POI is 1.047" high and 1.047" left, I adjust the 1 MOA for both windage and elevation, and the total POI movement should be 1.481" as the POI movement is the hypotenuse of a right triangle that is 1.047" on two of the three sides. So the total distance from POA to POI is the square root of 2*(1.047")*(1.047") or 1.481". Even though I adjusted windage by 1 MOA and elevation by 1 MOA, my movement is larger.

Which gets to the nasty part of the math. Most people measure a group size by finding the longest distance between any of the impact points. I find that sloppy as it lumps (or ignores) horizontal dispersion with vertical dispersion. I think of group size in terms of both horizontal and vertical dispersion and use the diameter of a circle that fits all of the impacts as my definition of group size.

So if I shoot at 100 yards and my farthest impacts from group center at 1.047" high and 1.047" to the right, my group size is not 1 MOA (1.047"); it is 1.481". Big difference in the numbers.

[SecondsCount]

Wind and ammo are huge...wind being the biggest issue.

Do you shoot long range?

Just ran some numbers with my Ballistic software and MK262 ammo

Ok, let’s take your 1moa gun-

An SD of 25 at 1000yds will give you a vertical spread of 16”. If your shooting a 12x18 plate at 1000 and hold center, you could very easily miss and think it was you or the gun...nope it’s your store bought MATCH AMMO.

Now let’s take your 1moa rifle at 1000yds and give it an SD of 0 but let’s say you missed your wind call by 2mph, that’s pretty easy to do. You held 10 but it’s actually 12mph. Same 12x18 plate, center hold, you missed by 19” off the plate.

I know I’m getting way off into the weeds here, but I’ll reiterate....so many things go into shooting accurately. Just talking about rifles is similar to talking about buying a new pistol or trigger so you’ll be a better shooter. Doesn’t work that way. It’s a package deal...shooter, ammo and rifle

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, I shoot long range. Sometimes with my carbine as my first post in this thread touched on. I feel like you are trying to take the focus off the question :p

While the 223/5.56 is not the best cartridge for shooting long range, it will keep up with a 308 which a lot of people used for that purpose. The 6 and 6.5 calibers have started to dominate in that area, purely based on the higher BC bullets that they can send downrange. I much prefer my 6BR or 6x47L with a high BC for the job but the carbine is fun and cheap.

Wind can be your best friend or worst enemy :) It is one of the reasons I enjoy shooting the 223 at long range as you can see the effect wind has on the bullet much better than with the higher performing calibers.

The beauty of shooting my carbine at that distance is that there is low recoil and you can use your first shot as a spotter, then follow up with a quick holdover to compensate.

[Darth_Uno]

I'm very information oriented. Very clinical. If I don't shoot well (which is not uncommon, I'm a far better handgun shooter than rifle) I prefer to know it was me and not my rifle.

[MistWolf]

A rifle may shoot within MOA at 100 yards but 3 MOA at 600 even without wind because of bullet rpm. A slower twist (thus a lower bullet rpm) may be enough to stabilize the bullet out to 100 yards, but as the bullet travels, the rpms drop. They can drop enough that the bullet loses stability which will open up your groups at further ranges.