Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: AR15 Accuracy Standards, technique, blah, blah, blah

  1. #11
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Away, away, away, down.......
    Here’s a couple of videos that give the reason for shooting groups of more than three rounds.








    Maybe some more experienced long range shooters can back me up, but my understanding is that it’s hard to get maximum accuracy by shooting with an bipod off of a hard surface. To test the system for accuracy try firing off bags in the front or a good weighted rest (not a $30.caldwell rest from the squalmart).

  2. #12
    "I find it hard to distinguish 1" square at 100yd from my crosshair"

    Natchez has the older Weaver T24 for 300 some bucks. Those scopes are useless for anything but fussy target shooting, but they are the bee's knees for that. I keep one rifle fitted with one, and you can tell which quadrant of the one inch square you were aiming at at 200 yds easily. If I pull the shot a half inch, I can see it and know who to blame.


    If it's any consolation, I have one barrel from a prominent manufacturer with a good reputation that I could never get to shoot well. Maybe it's me, or not, but I've had better luck with other barrels. If I was David Tubb I'd know it wasn't me, but I'm not, so I'll always wonder :-(

  3. #13
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by ST911 View Post
    Some things that help me...

    Shooting from the bench, ensure that you're anchored/bagged securely, stock weld is good and you're in a firm seated position behind the gun. Many people sit too high, close, or far and end up hunkering behind the gun. If you're bipod is on a smooth surface, a high friction pad under the legs (or a wet towel) sometimes help. There's a lot of float that can go on that you're not aware of. Shoot it prone to compare.
    I've tried with the bipod and off a sandbag (sandbag for the rear in both cases) and saw no significant difference for me. The benches are rough wood, so it's not sliding around and seems quite stable.


    Quote Originally Posted by ST911 View Post
    The more rounds you shoot, the bigger your group gets. Unless your three round groups are tiny and consistent, one shot is good, one is bad, and one is one of the others. I like 5 rounds for zero and comparison. Ten might tell you a bit more, but you have to accept a larger group. The larger the group, the more time, impatience, eye fatigue, etc.
    Within a single brand/load, the groups, even at 3rnd, are pretty consistent. I just took three targets from a single load. Two are 3rnd, one is 5rnd. The 6 shots of the two 3rnd targets fit inside the group from the 5rnd target. The two 3rnd groups overlay each other nicely and the two combined do not expand outside the measurements of the larger of the two.

    Quote Originally Posted by ST911 View Post
    Shoot at longer distances to see if the loads are performing better than you think. It's a bit of a mind bender, but load that's +/- whatever MOA at 100 may get a little better at distance, or hold that accuracy longer than others.
    Unfortunately 100yd is the longest range I have access to.

    Chris

  4. #14
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by Caballoflaco View Post
    Here’s a couple of videos that give the reason for shooting groups of more than three rounds.


    https://youtu.be/v40Oj__Ygug

    https://youtu.be/4dhPTf18_mw


    Maybe some more experienced long range shooters can back me up, but my understanding is that it’s hard to get maximum accuracy by shooting with an bipod off of a hard surface. To test the system for accuracy try firing off bags in the front or a good weighted rest (not a $30.caldwell rest from the squalmart).
    The videos did a good job explaining why more rounds is better, but they also confirmed that 3rnd isn't necessarily "wrong" for weeding out obvious junk or when working up handloads. The take away for me was that once I think I've zeroed in on an apparently accurate load, I need to shoot 5, 10, or more rounds to truly test the load/rifle combination. That isn't all that different than what I'm doing now and what I've done previously.

    Chris

  5. #15
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by whomever View Post
    If it's any consolation, I have one barrel from a prominent manufacturer with a good reputation that I could never get to shoot well. Maybe it's me, or not, but I've had better luck with other barrels. If I was David Tubb I'd know it wasn't me, but I'm not, so I'll always wonder :-(
    That's my biggest fear right now. I'm ok with it being the shooter as I'm sure I have room to improve. I'm even ok with it being assembly as I can pull the gun apart and reassemble. However, if it's the barrel, I now have an expensive club. I hope I can figure out which it is before I drive myself batty.

    Chris

  6. #16
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Another range trip (working early mornings makes this easy).
    Ambient Temperature: 95deg with a light breeze (was same last time)

    I shot 18 targets. The first set of 6 were 5 rounds. The 2nd set were 10 rounds (except where I didn't have 10 rounds left of a given load). The final was 5 rounds.

    Note: I omitted targets from loads that have been historical poor performers.

    The gun was fired from the bipod up front and sandbags in the rear.

    Round 1 (5-shot):
    Nosler SSA 77gr OTM: 1.494
    Note: WTF? This load gave me 2 sub 1" 5 shot groups and 2 sub 1" 3 shot groups previously.

    PPU Match 75gr: .87"
    Hornady Black 75gr BTHP: 1.15"
    Hornady Match 75gr BTHP: 1.22"
    Hornady Match 73gr ELD: .862"


    Round 2 (10 shots unless otherwise noted):
    Nosler SSA 77gr OTM: 1.797"
    PPU Match 75gr: 2.439"
    Hornady Black 75gr BTHP (4rnds): 1.115"
    Hornady Match 73gr ELD (4rnds): 1.272"
    Hornady Match 75gr BTHP (9rnds): 2.474"
    PMR XTAC 62gr LAP: 2.122"


    Round 3 (5 shots again and I'm running out of ammo):
    Nosler SSA 77gr OTM: 1.165
    PMR XTAC 62gr LAP: 1.5"
    PPU Match 75gr: 1.57"
    AE Varmint 50gr (Walmart purchase): 1.228"

    To be honest, I'm not certain I was shooting at my best. Sweat was literally pouring off me. I had to keep a rag handy to mop my face, the stock, and my glasses. However, I think the problem is with the gun at this point and I think I'm going to try Loctiting the barrel and using a slightly higher torque figure unless someone has some suggestions. I've burned through $200 in ammo and the best conclusion I can make so far is that the gun seems to prefer heavier bullet loads at lower velocities. That knowledge will be useful for when I start reloading 223 I suppose.

    Chris

  7. #17
    This is sort of a diversion, but FWIW: when I got interested in longer range shooting, I knew that my skills - more precisely, the lack thereof - were an issue. I got one of the cheaper Savage heavy barrel 223's - whatever model Cabela's frequently has on sale for 300 odd bucks. And I mounted one of the Weaver T series, because this wasn't intended to be a general purpose rifle; it was training wheels for me. And I started shooting. IIRC a number of commercial loads were right at one MOA. I worked up a handload that frequently halves that, and is rarely over 0.75 MOA (5 shot groups here, off bipod+rear bag). I mostly work on my technique now; if I'm getting less than .75 I figure it's me.

    My thinking is something like this: I'd have to be a veritable prodigy to become a great rifle shooter by shooting under 5000 rounds (making Expert in bullseye took me many times that!). I figured the cheap Savage would probably have a barrel that was better than beginner me, and I'd get better as the barrel wore out. If those curves cross at 5000 rounds, then my education to that point cost $2500 in ammo and say $500 for a top of the line rebarrel (which is cheap on a Savage, 'cuz you can DIY).

    A bolt action just has a lot less going on than a semi.

    I should emphasize - everyone has different objectives. I'm more interested in being able to hit steel at several hundred yards. A 1 MOA rifle works for that; if it will shoot 6 inches at 600 yards, reading the wind is a bigger problem than the rifle's inherent error. That may or may not apply to your objectives.

    Anyway, food for thought, FWIW.

  8. #18
    To the OP, I feel your pain. I’ve sent a lot of factory ammo downrange chasing accuracy from an AR.

    Couple of thoughts on potential for inconsistent performance:

    -The gun may not be 100% set up for you. An A2 stock is a bit long for most, unless your fairly bladed behind the gun. Also, your cheek weld may be too low. Are you able to “fall asleep” on the stock and still have a good sight picture when you open your eyes? If not, that means you are muscling your cheek weld, however slightly, and that can lead to inconsistency.

    -The barrel may be the culprit. I’ve read on other forums that Stealth barrels have not been as consistent since Larue stopped using Lothar Walther and began producing them in house.

  9. #19
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by whomever View Post
    This is sort of a diversion, but FWIW: when I got interested in longer range shooting, I knew that my skills - more precisely, the lack thereof - were an issue. I got one of the cheaper Savage heavy barrel 223's - whatever model Cabela's frequently has on sale for 300 odd bucks. And I mounted one of the Weaver T series, because this wasn't intended to be a general purpose rifle; it was training wheels for me. And I started shooting. IIRC a number of commercial loads were right at one MOA. I worked up a handload that frequently halves that, and is rarely over 0.75 MOA (5 shot groups here, off bipod+rear bag). I mostly work on my technique now; if I'm getting less than .75 I figure it's me.

    My thinking is something like this: I'd have to be a veritable prodigy to become a great rifle shooter by shooting under 5000 rounds (making Expert in bullseye took me many times that!). I figured the cheap Savage would probably have a barrel that was better than beginner me, and I'd get better as the barrel wore out. If those curves cross at 5000 rounds, then my education to that point cost $2500 in ammo and say $500 for a top of the line rebarrel (which is cheap on a Savage, 'cuz you can DIY).

    A bolt action just has a lot less going on than a semi.

    I should emphasize - everyone has different objectives. I'm more interested in being able to hit steel at several hundred yards. A 1 MOA rifle works for that; if it will shoot 6 inches at 600 yards, reading the wind is a bigger problem than the rifle's inherent error. That may or may not apply to your objectives.

    Anyway, food for thought, FWIW.
    It's not a bad suggestion. I already have a couple bolts (one scoped that is sub-1" at 100yds with my handloads, the other with a peep sight) and wanted to do something different.

    I never get to shoot beyond 100yds and just want something to punch small groups in paper without beating myself up. I thought an AR would be an easy way toward that goal.

    Chris

  10. #20
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by Backspin View Post
    To the OP, I feel your pain. I’ve sent a lot of factory ammo downrange chasing accuracy from an AR.

    Couple of thoughts on potential for inconsistent performance:

    -The gun may not be 100% set up for you. An A2 stock is a bit long for most, unless your fairly bladed behind the gun. Also, your cheek weld may be too low. Are you able to “fall asleep” on the stock and still have a good sight picture when you open your eyes? If not, that means you are muscling your cheek weld, however slightly, and that can lead to inconsistency.

    -The barrel may be the culprit. I’ve read on other forums that Stealth barrels have not been as consistent since Larue stopped using Lothar Walther and began producing them in house.
    I'm relatively long-limbed and tend to feel comfortable with standard or slightly longer LOP stocks. That said, what does "bladed" mean?

    I'll check the cheek weld. I don't recall having to press into the stock for a good sight picture. I do think I have the scope a bit too far forward. When holding it offhand, it's fine, but on the bench, I feel like I have to slide too far forward to get a good sight picture.

    Regarding the change in barrel manufacturing, I've read the same, but the overall perception was that they're still good barrels. The challenge for me is separating barrel from assembly from shooter.

    Chris

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •