I'm just going to say it

[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 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