m1a accuracy
- Thread starter SuburbanHick
- Start date
Re: m1a accuracy
If you can shoot them, they'll have no problem cleaning the 1000 yard NRA High Power Target with M118, don't even have to use the M118LR. With iron sights.
Stuff, some 175 SMKs in a Winchester Case, push it with 41.5 grns of 4895 and you're good to go.
Take into account this is from the prone w/sling, unsupported.
If you can shoot them, they'll have no problem cleaning the 1000 yard NRA High Power Target with M118, don't even have to use the M118LR. With iron sights.
Stuff, some 175 SMKs in a Winchester Case, push it with 41.5 grns of 4895 and you're good to go.
Take into account this is from the prone w/sling, unsupported.
Re: m1a accuracy
so in otherwords, if i put a good mount with a good scope could easily hunt with it
so in otherwords, if i put a good mount with a good scope could easily hunt with it
Re: m1a accuracy
No problem at all! A properly built M1A should have no trouble holding one MOA with decent ammo.
No problem at all! A properly built M1A should have no trouble holding one MOA with decent ammo.
Re: m1a accuracy
M1A's a very capable weapons, especially once accurized. But they are a battle rifle and never were built nor intended for extreme accuracy like a bolt gun. I love M1A's but they are more expensive and picky to accurize like an AR platform. My Fulton Armory M1A will shoot sub-moa all day if I do my part.
M1A's a very capable weapons, especially once accurized. But they are a battle rifle and never were built nor intended for extreme accuracy like a bolt gun. I love M1A's but they are more expensive and picky to accurize like an AR platform. My Fulton Armory M1A will shoot sub-moa all day if I do my part.
Re: m1a accuracy
Suburbanhick,
You should, but M1As/M14s DO require some fairly routine maintanence to keep them shooting well. They can be tempermental, and lose their edge if not kept up to snuff. This is one of the primary reasons they lost favor to the ARs for competitive shooting in the High Power field. Good guns, and I've spent a lot of time with them, so I'll admit to a soft spot for them.
Suburbanhick,
You should, but M1As/M14s DO require some fairly routine maintanence to keep them shooting well. They can be tempermental, and lose their edge if not kept up to snuff. This is one of the primary reasons they lost favor to the ARs for competitive shooting in the High Power field. Good guns, and I've spent a lot of time with them, so I'll admit to a soft spot for them.
Re: m1a accuracy
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you can shoot them, they'll have no problem cleaning the 1000 yard NRA High Power Target with M118, don't even have to use the M118LR. With iron sights.
Stuff, some 175 SMKs in a Winchester Case, push it with 41.5 grns of 4895 and you're good to go.
Take into account this is from the prone w/sling, unsupported. </div></div>
There is no more M118, hasn't been in a lot of years (although I do still have some I forgot about). M118LR is easy to replicate. BUT, given the differences in barrels (chambers really), it's best to start low with the handloads and let the people work them up for their own rifles. The SAI NM's and super matches can come with at least two different barrels.... Kreiger's have a tight chamber where Douglas are looser and more forgiving. Better accuracy with the Kreiger's.
I've used you handload in a '03 I rebarreled for .308. That's a warm load for a tight chambered M1A. Works very nicely in the '03.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you can shoot them, they'll have no problem cleaning the 1000 yard NRA High Power Target with M118, don't even have to use the M118LR. With iron sights.
Stuff, some 175 SMKs in a Winchester Case, push it with 41.5 grns of 4895 and you're good to go.
Take into account this is from the prone w/sling, unsupported. </div></div>
There is no more M118, hasn't been in a lot of years (although I do still have some I forgot about). M118LR is easy to replicate. BUT, given the differences in barrels (chambers really), it's best to start low with the handloads and let the people work them up for their own rifles. The SAI NM's and super matches can come with at least two different barrels.... Kreiger's have a tight chamber where Douglas are looser and more forgiving. Better accuracy with the Kreiger's.
I've used you handload in a '03 I rebarreled for .308. That's a warm load for a tight chambered M1A. Works very nicely in the '03.
Re: m1a accuracy
I worked up a load for my super match using H4895 and 175 SMK shoots very well, the muzzle velocity for my load is at 2550 fps. You need to watch the op rod if you go into the higher end of loads you can damage the rod. Also if you hand load make sure your primers are seated deep they can slam fire on you with primers out.
I shoot irons, scope mounts tend to not be as tight as you would like and move, just the nature of them as an afterthought to the original design. The Marines at the PWS do not screw around they just weld the mounts on.
I worked up a load for my super match using H4895 and 175 SMK shoots very well, the muzzle velocity for my load is at 2550 fps. You need to watch the op rod if you go into the higher end of loads you can damage the rod. Also if you hand load make sure your primers are seated deep they can slam fire on you with primers out.
I shoot irons, scope mounts tend to not be as tight as you would like and move, just the nature of them as an afterthought to the original design. The Marines at the PWS do not screw around they just weld the mounts on.
Re: m1a accuracy
I'm no expert, but I load 168s with 41.5 of "IMR" 4895 (referred to as "M852?). I believe you will find that there are two 4895s, and they are similar,but not exactly alike. 41.5 might be a little over-pressure for a M1A.
I'm no expert, but I load 168s with 41.5 of "IMR" 4895 (referred to as "M852?). I believe you will find that there are two 4895s, and they are similar,but not exactly alike. 41.5 might be a little over-pressure for a M1A.
Re: m1a accuracy
I had one. Didn't work up a load for it, but shooting FGMM, BH match or Hornady TAP (all 168gr) I could never get it to shoot much better than 1MOA (on good day). Using "surplus" ammo it was about 4 or 5 MOA. Sold it a couple of months ago and bought a Savage 10BA-LE in .308. Worked up a load with 175SMK and it will shoot .3" or .4" groups @ 100yards (shot a 1" group @ 300yards)... I am much happier with this. From talking with different guys it became apparent that the design is not capable of the extreme accuracy I was looking for with the gas system/stock that is used. Fine for hunting or where you have a "big" target, but not so much for little groups...
I had one. Didn't work up a load for it, but shooting FGMM, BH match or Hornady TAP (all 168gr) I could never get it to shoot much better than 1MOA (on good day). Using "surplus" ammo it was about 4 or 5 MOA. Sold it a couple of months ago and bought a Savage 10BA-LE in .308. Worked up a load with 175SMK and it will shoot .3" or .4" groups @ 100yards (shot a 1" group @ 300yards)... I am much happier with this. From talking with different guys it became apparent that the design is not capable of the extreme accuracy I was looking for with the gas system/stock that is used. Fine for hunting or where you have a "big" target, but not so much for little groups...
Re: m1a accuracy
If you want to hunt with it keep in mind its a heavy rifle. A scout m1a would be better if you want an m1a to carry.
If you want to hunt with it keep in mind its a heavy rifle. A scout m1a would be better if you want an m1a to carry.
Re: m1a accuracy
im 6 foot 3 and 235+ lbs.... and i use to carry a 240B at work.... i just traded my 240L in for something alittle more precise ......
im 6 foot 3 and 235+ lbs.... and i use to carry a 240B at work.... i just traded my 240L in for something alittle more precise ......
Re: m1a accuracy
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kevin Thomas</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No problem at all! A properly built M1A should have no trouble holding one MOA with decent ammo. </div></div>
Now what would Kevin know about 14 types?
PS Already into Ball type load testing, when I start swapping barrels, I'll get back into D46 loading. You know I have 1100 of the 170s. One of the team guys will let me "talk" him out of some of the 185s. Ought to be interesting! Sadly I don't think my Zeiss took the move very well.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kevin Thomas</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No problem at all! A properly built M1A should have no trouble holding one MOA with decent ammo. </div></div>
Now what would Kevin know about 14 types?
PS Already into Ball type load testing, when I start swapping barrels, I'll get back into D46 loading. You know I have 1100 of the 170s. One of the team guys will let me "talk" him out of some of the 185s. Ought to be interesting! Sadly I don't think my Zeiss took the move very well.
Re: m1a accuracy
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BCP</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you want to hunt with it keep in mind its a heavy rifle. A scout m1a would be better if you want an m1a to carry. </div></div>
Well even us old guys still prefer to carry a real rifle, even if it weights more. A friend of mine out shot a SOCOM with a 30-30 94.
If I wanted a good brush gun, I'd either go with a Remington 7 or a Ruger Gunsite... iron sights on that one and it throws nicely. I carried an iron sighted Mohawk for years riding SAR (in a scabbard) loaded with either M118 (real M118) or my Lapua Handload. That rifle was deadly out to 500 yards. I know, I shot it in a lot of matches and in the brush.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BCP</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you want to hunt with it keep in mind its a heavy rifle. A scout m1a would be better if you want an m1a to carry. </div></div>
Well even us old guys still prefer to carry a real rifle, even if it weights more. A friend of mine out shot a SOCOM with a 30-30 94.
If I wanted a good brush gun, I'd either go with a Remington 7 or a Ruger Gunsite... iron sights on that one and it throws nicely. I carried an iron sighted Mohawk for years riding SAR (in a scabbard) loaded with either M118 (real M118) or my Lapua Handload. That rifle was deadly out to 500 yards. I know, I shot it in a lot of matches and in the brush.
Re: m1a accuracy
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: judgedelta</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm no expert, but I load 168s with 41.5 of "IMR" 4895 (referred to as "M852?). I believe you will find that there are two 4895s, and they are similar,but not exactly alike. 41.5 might be a little over-pressure for a M1A. </div></div>
The Sierra 168 is a bullet never meant to be used past 300 yards. It is and has been used, but the military did Doppler tests on the bullet and out at distance, it's got problems. Better bullet is the current 155 or 175 (also used in M118LR).
Don't believe me, talk to Sierra. They're not shy about that one.
Also know that in 1976 the mix for IMR 4895 was changed (they changed the linters they were using). Pressures on post 76 IMR 4895 is higher. 41.5 is way to high for an M1A. Even 41.5 of 4064 with the 175 grain MK is high. Fine for bolt rifles (yes I do use the 4064 load in a .308 bolt rifle), but high for the 14 types.
The military is currently using RL-15 and 4064 for their accuracy ammo (mainly RL-15), NOT 4895. Also know that the 4895 produced for M118 ammo is different than commercial offerings.
I'll be testing a lot of loads for accuracy when I finish up with the ball equivalent loads I'm working on at the moment. Dug out some M80, Radway M80, FN and German ball as control ammo. haven't shot the Radway yet, but I am interested since the M80 pill mic's .307 (Brits have tighter bores).
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: judgedelta</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm no expert, but I load 168s with 41.5 of "IMR" 4895 (referred to as "M852?). I believe you will find that there are two 4895s, and they are similar,but not exactly alike. 41.5 might be a little over-pressure for a M1A. </div></div>
The Sierra 168 is a bullet never meant to be used past 300 yards. It is and has been used, but the military did Doppler tests on the bullet and out at distance, it's got problems. Better bullet is the current 155 or 175 (also used in M118LR).
Don't believe me, talk to Sierra. They're not shy about that one.
Also know that in 1976 the mix for IMR 4895 was changed (they changed the linters they were using). Pressures on post 76 IMR 4895 is higher. 41.5 is way to high for an M1A. Even 41.5 of 4064 with the 175 grain MK is high. Fine for bolt rifles (yes I do use the 4064 load in a .308 bolt rifle), but high for the 14 types.
The military is currently using RL-15 and 4064 for their accuracy ammo (mainly RL-15), NOT 4895. Also know that the 4895 produced for M118 ammo is different than commercial offerings.
I'll be testing a lot of loads for accuracy when I finish up with the ball equivalent loads I'm working on at the moment. Dug out some M80, Radway M80, FN and German ball as control ammo. haven't shot the Radway yet, but I am interested since the M80 pill mic's .307 (Brits have tighter bores).
Re: m1a accuracy
Jaeger308 said:I worked up a load for my super match using H4895 and 175 SMK shoots very well, the muzzle velocity for my load is at 2550 fps. You need to watch the op rod if you go into the higher end of loads you can damage the rod. Also if you hand load make sure your primers are seated deep they can slam fire on you with primers out.
Seating to deep can also damage the pill (Propellant). Forster has a thing I call the primer primer to give you precise data on primer seating. It is a good reference.
I shoot irons, scope mounts tend to not be as tight as you would like and move, just the nature of them as an afterthought to the original design. The Marines at the PWS do not screw around they just weld the mounts on.
I shoot both and have since 75. I started with the original G&H mount with the 1" rings.
Both the NM and scope mounts need to be tightened properly and since I've worked on USMC M21s, I know damn well the mounts were not welded.
Changed in the 2nd and 3rd generation of mounts make this a moot point since they attach to the stripped clip guide notch as well as screw onto the receiver.
Trick with commercial receivers is that some of them are NOT made to spec. Mike Sadlak has a test to make sure that the mount cuts are true and will take mounts made for USGI spec receivers.
If you're going to do it, do it right.
Right now I have a Bassett mount (1st Gen) because I don't care for the 2nd and 3rd gen mounts and it's working just fine. Only problem I've had in 300 round so far is the Picatinny mounts loosened. I'll simply lock tite them.
No, I don't hang monster scopes on battle rifles.
Re: m1a accuracy
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rojkoh</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The Sierra 168 is a bullet never meant to be used past 300 yards. It is and has been used, but the military did Doppler tests on the bullet and out at distance, it's got problems. Better bullet is the current 155 or 175 (also used in M118LR).
Don't believe me, talk to Sierra. They're not shy about that one.
</div></div>
Nope, the 168 SMK was designed as a 300 meter bullet. It got used out to 600 (mid range) by a lot of shooters, and it'll work for that. But you're pissing in the wind and wasting powder to try to use these at 1,000 yards. Subsonic at around 900-950 yards, and no "crack" as they arrive on target. The impact ont he target usually makes more noise than the bullet's arrival, and they're often yawing badly or outright keyholing when they come in.
Saved you the trouble of talking to Sierra (they're shut down this week, anyway).
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rojkoh</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The Sierra 168 is a bullet never meant to be used past 300 yards. It is and has been used, but the military did Doppler tests on the bullet and out at distance, it's got problems. Better bullet is the current 155 or 175 (also used in M118LR).
Don't believe me, talk to Sierra. They're not shy about that one.
</div></div>
Nope, the 168 SMK was designed as a 300 meter bullet. It got used out to 600 (mid range) by a lot of shooters, and it'll work for that. But you're pissing in the wind and wasting powder to try to use these at 1,000 yards. Subsonic at around 900-950 yards, and no "crack" as they arrive on target. The impact ont he target usually makes more noise than the bullet's arrival, and they're often yawing badly or outright keyholing when they come in.
Saved you the trouble of talking to Sierra (they're shut down this week, anyway).
Re: m1a accuracy
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rojkoh</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The Sierra 168 is a bullet never meant to be used past 300 yards. </div></div>
Logic FAIL. My Dad was one of the early adopters, when the 168 was called the "International". Designed FOR 300-meter ISU competition is NOT the same as "never meant to be used past 300 yards."
When Uncle Sugar adopted M852 after the military teams were making "Mexican Match" for maybe 20 years, the *ammo* was intended for out to 600 yards.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rojkoh</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Also know that in 1976 the mix for IMR 4895 was changed (they changed the linters they were using). Pressures on post 76 IMR 4895 is higher. 41.5 is way to high for an M1A. Even 41.5 of 4064 with the 175 grain MK is high. Fine for bolt rifles (yes I do use the 4064 load in a .308 bolt rifle), but high for the 14 types.
</div></div>
I don't believe that at all. PRESSURE testing in 1984 or so by the NRA, which included port pressure readings, showed that the "classic" load of IMR-4895 was still perfectly safe for M14 types. LC cases and everything. That's post-your reformulation theory.
In fact, port pressure tended to be highest with the lightest bullets.
Absent some actual test data, either with the USGI spec CUP measurements, or after my own estimated conversions of Piezo figures at the port, I don't believe it.
As for the OP, the M1As I've shot with a variety of barrels were never worse than 1.75 MOA with good bullets, never worse than 3.5 MOA with unsorted junk M80 Ball bullet reloads, and usually .75 to 1.25 MOA with both match and hunting bullets so long as some nominal amount of load development was done.
Just don't exceed 2580-2630 MV at 10 feet with 175-gr bullets, QuickLOAD says that every powder typically used starts pushing port pressure there, regardless of how safe the chamber peak pressure is.
It ain't a bolt gun.
If you want to pack it, go ahead and hunt with it. Stock Remington 700s often do no better accuracy-wise.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rojkoh</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The Sierra 168 is a bullet never meant to be used past 300 yards. </div></div>
Logic FAIL. My Dad was one of the early adopters, when the 168 was called the "International". Designed FOR 300-meter ISU competition is NOT the same as "never meant to be used past 300 yards."
When Uncle Sugar adopted M852 after the military teams were making "Mexican Match" for maybe 20 years, the *ammo* was intended for out to 600 yards.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rojkoh</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Also know that in 1976 the mix for IMR 4895 was changed (they changed the linters they were using). Pressures on post 76 IMR 4895 is higher. 41.5 is way to high for an M1A. Even 41.5 of 4064 with the 175 grain MK is high. Fine for bolt rifles (yes I do use the 4064 load in a .308 bolt rifle), but high for the 14 types.
</div></div>
I don't believe that at all. PRESSURE testing in 1984 or so by the NRA, which included port pressure readings, showed that the "classic" load of IMR-4895 was still perfectly safe for M14 types. LC cases and everything. That's post-your reformulation theory.
In fact, port pressure tended to be highest with the lightest bullets.
Absent some actual test data, either with the USGI spec CUP measurements, or after my own estimated conversions of Piezo figures at the port, I don't believe it.
As for the OP, the M1As I've shot with a variety of barrels were never worse than 1.75 MOA with good bullets, never worse than 3.5 MOA with unsorted junk M80 Ball bullet reloads, and usually .75 to 1.25 MOA with both match and hunting bullets so long as some nominal amount of load development was done.
Just don't exceed 2580-2630 MV at 10 feet with 175-gr bullets, QuickLOAD says that every powder typically used starts pushing port pressure there, regardless of how safe the chamber peak pressure is.
It ain't a bolt gun.
If you want to pack it, go ahead and hunt with it. Stock Remington 700s often do no better accuracy-wise.
Re: m1a accuracy
Like the battle rifle fielded before it, the M14 was not developed to be an MOA gun, but it can be 'smithed to shoot exceedingly well.
I had one for awhile in the '90s that was done by Clint Fowler of Virgina.
Springfield used to build decent rifles when GI parts were available, but these days their M1A National Match is national trash out the door. . . .
If Springfield built it as a "NM", you should see:
* bedding in the stock
* oversized stock ferrule
* unitized gas cylinder
* NM rear sight arrangement (hood, spring'n'ball clicks)
* Reamed flash suppressor
Better to get one from Jon Wolfe, or Fulton, or Smith Enterprises. I have no doubt with them building the guns, they will be match conditioned.
Like the battle rifle fielded before it, the M14 was not developed to be an MOA gun, but it can be 'smithed to shoot exceedingly well.
I had one for awhile in the '90s that was done by Clint Fowler of Virgina.
Springfield used to build decent rifles when GI parts were available, but these days their M1A National Match is national trash out the door. . . .
If Springfield built it as a "NM", you should see:
* bedding in the stock
* oversized stock ferrule
* unitized gas cylinder
* NM rear sight arrangement (hood, spring'n'ball clicks)
* Reamed flash suppressor
Better to get one from Jon Wolfe, or Fulton, or Smith Enterprises. I have no doubt with them building the guns, they will be match conditioned.
Re: m1a accuracy
The USN has a contract out using IMR4064 41.7, FC head stamp
on the brass, 210M primers with the 175gr Sierra match King.
Have used the load oin my standard M1A shot veery well...
For more load data go to M-14 Forum.
http://m14forum.com/
Good shooting....
The USN has a contract out using IMR4064 41.7, FC head stamp
on the brass, 210M primers with the 175gr Sierra match King.
Have used the load oin my standard M1A shot veery well...
For more load data go to M-14 Forum.
http://m14forum.com/
Good shooting....
Re: m1a accuracy
You don't buy an m1 for group size. You buy one because it won't fail you in the field. Also, there are much better makers out there than SA. LRB comes to mind.
If you are definitely going to bolt on some glass, the LRB M25 barreled action is the way to go hands down.
You don't buy an m1 for group size. You buy one because it won't fail you in the field. Also, there are much better makers out there than SA. LRB comes to mind.
If you are definitely going to bolt on some glass, the LRB M25 barreled action is the way to go hands down.
Re: m1a accuracy
I have 2 of these rifles. A National Match, as well as a Super Match. Both Springfield Armory. I used them when I started shooting at Camp Perry because that's all I had. Earned my initial classification of Sharpshooter with the NM. They will hold the 10 ring, but you must do your part and have SOLID positions. Expensive to feed! UGH! If you work up a load that the rifle likes, stick to it and get on the gun. They will need re-bedding, and perhaps trigger work as they will lose weight if you're picking up weights before a match. It's a classic rifle which is underestimated in my estimation. But, LO! Do I get the looks when I break out the Supermatch with that awesome walnut stock! You'd think the Swedish Bikini Team showed up! Good luck and good shooting!
Doug
P.S. Try some Speer 125's at the short line-makes you look like a stud!
I have 2 of these rifles. A National Match, as well as a Super Match. Both Springfield Armory. I used them when I started shooting at Camp Perry because that's all I had. Earned my initial classification of Sharpshooter with the NM. They will hold the 10 ring, but you must do your part and have SOLID positions. Expensive to feed! UGH! If you work up a load that the rifle likes, stick to it and get on the gun. They will need re-bedding, and perhaps trigger work as they will lose weight if you're picking up weights before a match. It's a classic rifle which is underestimated in my estimation. But, LO! Do I get the looks when I break out the Supermatch with that awesome walnut stock! You'd think the Swedish Bikini Team showed up! Good luck and good shooting!
Doug
P.S. Try some Speer 125's at the short line-makes you look like a stud!
Re: m1a accuracy
Is the M1A National Match setup for 168 grain bullets? I have one and have only ever shot 150 & 147 grn milsurp through it- one of these days I should try some of that American Eagle 168grn.... maybe after the panic subsides and I can find some. Or crack open a battlepack of Lithuanian, that stuff is more accurate than me in my PTR.
Is the M1A National Match setup for 168 grain bullets? I have one and have only ever shot 150 & 147 grn milsurp through it- one of these days I should try some of that American Eagle 168grn.... maybe after the panic subsides and I can find some. Or crack open a battlepack of Lithuanian, that stuff is more accurate than me in my PTR.
Re: m1a accuracy
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kevin Thomas</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rojkoh</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The Sierra 168 is a bullet never meant to be used past 300 yards. It is and has been used, but the military did Doppler tests on the bullet and out at distance, it's got problems. Better bullet is the current 155 or 175 (also used in M118LR).
Don't believe me, talk to Sierra. They're not shy about that one.
</div></div>
Nope, the 168 SMK was designed as a 300 meter bullet. It got used out to 600 (mid range) by a lot of shooters, and it'll work for that. But you're pissing in the wind and wasting powder to try to use these at 1,000 yards. Subsonic at around 900-950 yards, and no "crack" as they arrive on target. The impact ont he target usually makes more noise than the bullet's arrival, and they're often yawing badly or outright keyholing when they come in.
Saved you the trouble of talking to Sierra (they're shut down this week, anyway). </div></div>
I know Kevin, I talk to Sierra fairly regularly. They say "yards"
But I have the rough notes on the M852 testing in which they did Doppler testing and the Sierra 168 did not do well. The 170 D46 out performed it. They wanted them since they could use the .309 bullets for worn barrels, BUT.. not made in the US. If you go back and pull M118 bullets, they're not .308.. slightly oversized. I still have unopened M118 which I discovered recently.. I did open one box to do the typical pull and test for important data. It's one of Larry Moore's 77-78 production runs. Good stuff.
Besides, if you ever had one of the 1st gen NM barrels, they were slightly oversized (I slugged dozens of them since I normally bought them by the dozen) and the 168 did not want to perform anywhere near as good as the Hornady copy of and the Lapua D46 design. I never shot the 185s, but you know I used both the Hornady copy and Lapua extensively and still will (I have 1100 of the 170s). When I get to it, I'll screw on one of the Kreiger's I have. It'll mean not using the M118 brass though.. the match chambers are tight and I do not use small base dies.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kevin Thomas</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rojkoh</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The Sierra 168 is a bullet never meant to be used past 300 yards. It is and has been used, but the military did Doppler tests on the bullet and out at distance, it's got problems. Better bullet is the current 155 or 175 (also used in M118LR).
Don't believe me, talk to Sierra. They're not shy about that one.
</div></div>
Nope, the 168 SMK was designed as a 300 meter bullet. It got used out to 600 (mid range) by a lot of shooters, and it'll work for that. But you're pissing in the wind and wasting powder to try to use these at 1,000 yards. Subsonic at around 900-950 yards, and no "crack" as they arrive on target. The impact ont he target usually makes more noise than the bullet's arrival, and they're often yawing badly or outright keyholing when they come in.
Saved you the trouble of talking to Sierra (they're shut down this week, anyway). </div></div>
I know Kevin, I talk to Sierra fairly regularly. They say "yards"
But I have the rough notes on the M852 testing in which they did Doppler testing and the Sierra 168 did not do well. The 170 D46 out performed it. They wanted them since they could use the .309 bullets for worn barrels, BUT.. not made in the US. If you go back and pull M118 bullets, they're not .308.. slightly oversized. I still have unopened M118 which I discovered recently.. I did open one box to do the typical pull and test for important data. It's one of Larry Moore's 77-78 production runs. Good stuff.
Besides, if you ever had one of the 1st gen NM barrels, they were slightly oversized (I slugged dozens of them since I normally bought them by the dozen) and the 168 did not want to perform anywhere near as good as the Hornady copy of and the Lapua D46 design. I never shot the 185s, but you know I used both the Hornady copy and Lapua extensively and still will (I have 1100 of the 170s). When I get to it, I'll screw on one of the Kreiger's I have. It'll mean not using the M118 brass though.. the match chambers are tight and I do not use small base dies.
Re: m1a accuracy
kraigWY said:If you can shoot them, they'll have no problem cleaning the 1000 yard NRA High Power Target with M118, don't even have to use the M118LR. With iron sights.
Depends on which lot of M118 you're going to talk about. There were good and not good lots of it.
Stuff, some 175 SMKs in a Winchester Case, push it with 41.5 grns of 4895 and you're good to go.
Bad starting point depending on what barrel is on the rifle. Some NM chambers are VERY tight. If you want to play it smart, you WORK UP the load for it. Each rifle is different depending. try Lapua brass.. it's nice. Federal seems to be soft now.. I've been seeing primers backing out of reloads (once fired).
Take into account this is from the prone w/sling, unsupported.
It's an old way and still works!
PS get the Sinclair catalog, turn to page 218 top left corner. You'll see the Mid Thompkin's cheater slings... we first bought them from Mid in 76 and they're really great if you're not shooting a regulation match. The "cheater" was developed from the International and is very fast and great to use. We used them at 1000 yard matches regularly since they were club matches shot two ways (both sling prone): any rifle iron sight, any rifle any sight. I had the G&H M14 mount on mine with the later 1" rings. Had a Leopold in it and just slide it on and locked it down. always repeated perfectly. With iron sights it was in my shooting stool or butt pack if we were shooting something "practical".
Re: m1a accuracy
You know what I'm working on, and I find that sometimes discussing it online not only reminds me of something that might have skipped my mind (I am getting old), it also helps give me a better way to format things in a better manner.
Your post was a classic for reminded me of something I hadn't mentioned. But, also understand that my first M14 mentor was a lead engineer at TRW Ord (Don Stoehr who also designed the LMR or LMW as it was called at SA). he not only introduced me to two other TRW ordies, but worked me through the issue of NOT impinging on the barrel the way it was done for years to make a light barrel more rigid. This was first "officially" done on the '03A4s as far as I can find in researching this for 4-5 months. It was done by the Canadians on their NM rifles. It was also used on the Model 54 Winchesters. I just worked on one (Nice rifle). This was an issue that was argued about at TRW.
You are right, there is no absolute way to free float the 14 type barrel, but SAI was advertising that it was a free floated barrel which with the unitized gas system is pure horse hockey. Ergo, my post and yes, I know sometimes I have the posting style of Attila the Hun (or Bun as Python used to say).
So yes, I do say Free floating, but in a sense that's easier for people to understand than the issue of impinging on a light barrel. On a medium grade or heavy, this is really a moot point and the unitized assembly is not needed.
You know what I'm working on, and I find that sometimes discussing it online not only reminds me of something that might have skipped my mind (I am getting old), it also helps give me a better way to format things in a better manner.
Your post was a classic for reminded me of something I hadn't mentioned. But, also understand that my first M14 mentor was a lead engineer at TRW Ord (Don Stoehr who also designed the LMR or LMW as it was called at SA). he not only introduced me to two other TRW ordies, but worked me through the issue of NOT impinging on the barrel the way it was done for years to make a light barrel more rigid. This was first "officially" done on the '03A4s as far as I can find in researching this for 4-5 months. It was done by the Canadians on their NM rifles. It was also used on the Model 54 Winchesters. I just worked on one (Nice rifle). This was an issue that was argued about at TRW.
You are right, there is no absolute way to free float the 14 type barrel, but SAI was advertising that it was a free floated barrel which with the unitized gas system is pure horse hockey. Ergo, my post and yes, I know sometimes I have the posting style of Attila the Hun (or Bun as Python used to say).
So yes, I do say Free floating, but in a sense that's easier for people to understand than the issue of impinging on a light barrel. On a medium grade or heavy, this is really a moot point and the unitized assembly is not needed.
Interesting, never had a real problem with one personally, but I could run down the list of things I've seen over the years, especially with the SAI rifles.
I have several M1A's, The Brand New Stainless/Walnut National Match by Springfield was a disappointment. I was so proud when I showed to the retired Marine that built my others, he told me as soon as he touched it that don't worry if it doesn't shoot he could fix it, I thought he was kidding but I guess Marines don't kid. All of his M1A rifles for me shoot 1/4-1/2 MOA and the Factory Stainless/Walnut National Match with 8-different loads and ammo shot 2-5/16 to 3-1/8" five shot groups from a sled at in indoor range with no wind. All of my AK's and SKS' shooting Tech Sights- iron sights will do better than that. And that was with a Sadlack Airborne Mount ( professionally installed), lapped tactical 6-screw low rings and a 2.5-10x50mm scope on 10x out of a lead sled. What a POS. I asked him what was wrong and he said their bedding job would have to be redone, they had way-way too much tension at the front of the stock to the barrel band. I'm 6'-6" and almost 300lbs and with one hand squeezing that point I could barely budge it. I have started checking new ones at gun shops and they're all like that. I asked how they had gotten the bedding job that perfect looking and he would not say but another gunsmith told me they bed them and then cut them out with a CNC machine, so to me that's not bedded with a release agent to your rifle. I guess it speeds up production but when I pay that much for a rifle I want it done right. I asked Bud what could I try and he reminded me he had done an extra reinforced GI fiberglass stock for my open sight competition rifle. You are not supposed to interchange them but I asked if he carefully put it in that stock would it hurt the bedding? We did that and he said it might take 25 rounds or so for the stock to settle in. That was a Springfield factory Woodland Camo GI Fiberglass stock made back I think in the 1980's I found NOS. In all the GI stocks he fiberglass's a .220 Titanium rod full length on each side inside the lip. When I shot the rifle in that stock in the sled to verify, it 5/8"- 3/4" 5-shot groups, I took my time and shot 6-groups. And when all the stupid pressure was released from the factory walnut bedded stock the rifle shot 3-3/8" high at a 100-yards. Bud said after some more rounds down range he thinks it will eventually get better. All my rifles have been fire-lapped with Tubbs Final Finish so I don't think that one will get much better. I am camoing it up to use for a hunting rifle since it's my least accurate M1A. I love my M1-A's but was thoroughly disappointed with Springfield on their National Match. My other M1A's that shoot circles around that one are all loaded models that Bud starts with. He said there's no sense in wasting the extra money on a National Match because the only up grade we use is the rear hooded sight. We do not use their front sight I use an Alley Globe sight with Lee Shavers inserts, sell their stocks and bedding jobs on Gun Broker and he has to redo the barrel/hand guard float, and his amazing trigger job. I don't know if ya'll are fortunate enough to have a Retired Marine around that can fix yours, but if prepared right they will shoot with a Bull Barreled Bolt Gun. After a Rifle Match Bud was showing some new shooters how to shoot offhand and on one leg went 8 out of 10 on orange clay pigeons on the 100-yard berm offhand with his open sight M1A on a windy day. It was a humbling experience, I just hope I'm still alive at 75 much less kicking everybody's bu** at the rifle range.
Attachments
A couple more
Here's a couple more including the National Match. The camo stock was a NOS factory Springfield M14 fiberglass stock from years ago that I added one of their pads to. It came with a matching solid handguard, we shoot a lot so I matched the camo job on a NOS early issue ventilated handguard and also painted up some mags for it. A camo gun sock is covering the stainless barrel. Since I'm not sure it's going to stay like this I have not installed the camo scope skin kit on the Sadlack Airborne mount and scope. The scope is a NOS Burris Black Diamond 3-12x50 mm Illuminated E1 Holdover Reticle. The other custom built Loaded has a steel Sadlack Mount and a Burris XTR 3-12x50 mm Illuminated Ballistic MilDot.
Here's a couple more including the National Match. The camo stock was a NOS factory Springfield M14 fiberglass stock from years ago that I added one of their pads to. It came with a matching solid handguard, we shoot a lot so I matched the camo job on a NOS early issue ventilated handguard and also painted up some mags for it. A camo gun sock is covering the stainless barrel. Since I'm not sure it's going to stay like this I have not installed the camo scope skin kit on the Sadlack Airborne mount and scope. The scope is a NOS Burris Black Diamond 3-12x50 mm Illuminated E1 Holdover Reticle. The other custom built Loaded has a steel Sadlack Mount and a Burris XTR 3-12x50 mm Illuminated Ballistic MilDot.
Attachments
Similar threads
