“Precision” AR accuracy expectations?

[theLBC]

It's pretty clear what the issue is, you guys lack the basics, it's that simple

you are talking about thumbs, loading the bipod, etc, and not in a good way. you are still trying to "figure" it all out, as you not understanding or putting it all together, which I see a lot.

If you are one of the guys, that considers shooting a semi-auto accurately is voodoo or something similar I would recommend a good one and taking a class with it.

All this stuff is Day One, hour one topics

maybe, but i have no issues shooting groups and so i think i have the basics working for me (in part thanks to your advice).
as for "little things" i am just answering a question from another member (how do you do it?).
he is already able to shoot some .7 moa groups, so maybe he isn't far off on basics either.

 

[Precision Underground]

Looks good to me.

I'll add my one cent worth. To get better with a AR get yourself a hold sensitive pellet gun. A Beeman R1 or a R9. They will drive you crazy at first but with a few tins of pellets you'll get to be able to stack 'em. A AR is a hold sensitive rifle for many of the same reasons. I think it is good practice and certainly saves money and time driving to a range.

Yep and not only hold sensitive but this will let you watch everything happen. Most have no idea that they are blacking out from a millisecond before to a few milliseconds after the trigger pull. I call it trigger pull blackout, a highly technical term . Once you stop doing it you realize how much control you have and how much more you can see when you stay present and watch it all happen. I’d be willing to bet that 50-75% of shooters black out and possibly flinch on every trigger pull. Probably not for avid match shooters or guys that have worked it out but the average shooter probably is. It’s just a natural reaction to an anticipated explosion happening next to your face.

If you have the discipline to mix dummy rounds with live rounds randomly in a few mags you can mix them up and learn A LOT very quickly. You’ll probably be surprised at your anticipation/reaction when it goes click instead of bang. The bang usually covers up the anticipation/reaction so guys have no idea they’re doing it. Ask me how I know....

 

[bigjake83]

I've never seen so many people try to come up with excuses and defend the reasons why they can't shoot for shit.

Get your Rig put together, shoot a couple hundred rounds and do your load development or find some box ammo it really likes. Shoot a 5x5 at 100yrds with a Bipod and rear bag from the bench or prone. If all five groups are .5 MOA you have a .5 MOA Gun and you're probably a .5 MOA shooter, if you have one or two flyers and the other 4rds from those groups with flyers are all at .5 MOA you still have a .5 MOA Gun you're just not a .5 MOA shooter.

If you can't even accomplish this then you don't have any business discussing the differences between 5, 10 or 20rd groups and what they prove, any shooter worth their salt can tell you what a rifle can do with 20 rounds.

 

[MontanaMan]

group shooting is a lesson in frustration. Its a training aid for 1 shot, 1 kill so if I can keep every round in a 1/2 MOA Dot doesn't that do the same thing ?

Best comment in the entire 4 pages of the thread; & maybe the most meaningful too.

MM

 

[Deleted member 113831]

1. Nobody has the patience for it
2. We don't all need 20 rounds strings

Very true, it seems nobody has the patience for it.

Using 20rnds as the metric would eliminate the bragging and stupid dickering over small groups that all have differing Mean Points of Impact, while giving better indication of a true rifle/shooter accuracy potential, AND...pointing to a more accurate zero for the gun and shooter.

IMO 100 yards is too forgiving of a distance. Anything hiding at 100 will start to shake out at 200 without involving environmentals.

In fact, I came up with the 21 shot Dot Drill because we don't shoot groups, group shooting is a lesson in frustration. Its a training aid for 1 shot, 1 kill so if I can keep every round in a 1/2 MOA Dot doesn't that do the same thing ?

It doesn't have to be a 20rnd string, it can all be shot as individual rounds as in the dot drill. It would depend on if the focus was testing just the rifle (20rnds from an unbroken position being the most accurate), or the rifle/shooter combo, 21 dot drill with all the shot aggregated into a single group measurement.

So yes, depending on what was done with the drill in the accounting afterward, it could accomplish exactly the same thing...I still advocate for 200 yards though.

And yes, I fully realize that no one gives a fuck what I think, but it is the internet.

 

[houndog]

Came here thinking: "I may struggle with semi's, but at least I can shoot my bolt guns pretty well". Apparently not. Kind of hard on the ego, but that's how you learn. Like most of us I'm self-taught and have been patching things together from random youtube videos and what seems to have worked for me. Looks like I have been doing everything wrong.

Kind of reminds me of when my son took up tennis, and, after he'd been playing for a while we signed him up for a lesson with the local pro. He came back frustrated and angry. When I asked him what was wrong he said, "I hate that guy. All he did was tell me what I was doing wrong." Tried to explain to him that's kind of the point of a lesson, if he just told you that you're perfect and shouldn't change a thing it wouldn't have beed much of a lesson.

So everyone's comments have been pretty helpful and I definitely have some things I'm going to try/work on.

 

[MontanaMan]

At the end of the day, LowLight offered some really good info, advice & direction................for free, nonetheless.

I picked up a couple of good points for sure.

MM

 

[Ledzep]

It's semantics a single 20 shot group vs. 20 shot dot drill. You can pull the same data from each. The dot drill is probably better for folks that don't have acoustic targets, spotters, pits, etc... Let you measure each shot individually if you're so inclined.

I disagree that the data isn't necessary. but we don't have to agree. There's a lot of info that cuts out BS later on. Namely MV data when combined with a chronograph, and solid MPOI info. It's all a trickle down system into the ballistics program. Solid MV, solid zero (range or angle), solid dispersion expectation. It isn't a waste of time and it's not hurting anything. Cut garbage away from your inputs to cut garbage away from your outputs.

I still contend that to effectively test any system for dispersion and speak with any confidence in its abilities, and to compare A to B as apples-to-apples as possible (i.e. this thread subject), the correct way is to get a sample size of at minimum 20 shots WITH the POI vs. POA correlated. I say that based on THOUSANDS of rounds of fixture testing with variable manipulation to see what matters and what is noise. Whether a single group, dot drill, 4x5, etc... If you're looking at equipment only, isolate the shooter and shoot it from a fixture. If you're wanting to include the shooter in the system, do so. I'm honestly at a loss for the hostility... One day we're weaponizing math, the next we're throwing entire pertinent subjects of math out the window... Again, I'm amazed again and again how much weight is placed onto small sample size criteria, test, etc.. in this industry.

Weapon dispersion is directly correlated to hit probability in sniper systems. BSing how you call out your total dispersion does not help you, just like plugging in an inflated BC or MV... I've never shot BR, F-class, etc. My testing is directly related to my understanding of field style shooting/hunting.

Take it or leave it. Keep your insults.

 

[theLBC]

there are devices now that use a gyro and/or laser to track your movement before and during your trigger pull, so this doesn't necessarily require lots of ammo or even a decent rifle to determine if you suck or not.
but again, i don't care about groups except how it is related to hitting things very far away on every shot.

 

[Lowlight]

Small sample sizes are a natural thing,

Nobody wants to waste 20 rounds on paper to make one hole, you combined a ton of data in YOUR version, but nobody does that consistently at all. While I write everything down, I don't need all this extra data regardless of your scientific method, we get it, we use 3 and 5 shots, it's been explained why because we don't need to keep doing the same thing over and over in order to "see" what the results would be... they only time I would consider this is diagnosing a problem and most cant be fixed in less.

I don't even waste my time with a chronograph any more, not in my class, not at home by myself, I have no reason to use one in most cases. I can take software, shoot a target, and align the software up to give me a number. I am using a different kind of math to solve for X vs the math used to solve for Y... That number will not change because I will end up using that information in the software moving forward. If the actual value is 2825fps and I have 2835fps in the software because I winged it and I got it by shooting at 600 yards and then aligning the drop up, what difference does it make? Just like you said, what is the difference if I do it that way or with a chronograph at 100 yards? The relevant data is the same. Either the software will change my chronograph number or I can let it upfront by asking it what it wants. The only difference is I cut out a step, I took a shortcut.

I would rather take the 20 shots and march out to distance with them, recording that data because it will tell me more than wasting 20 at 100 yards. Heck, some days I zero on steel at 200 yards, slip the scales to my 200yd dope and let it sit there. The wind just blows paper around on my range, hate chasing it.

@Ledzep
You ask why the hostility because you want us to do something NOBODY but a select few will do, you want to fundamentally change the way we look at everything because you want a bigger sample size, LOL, think about that a second because you are totally saying, my way is the only way to "know" when everyone else says, NO we can figure all this out another way, without doing it your way. The one person outside the box here is you, not us. why does this industry not use bigger sample sizes because 100 years ago we found out it wasn't needed. No company started out giving 20 shot accuracy guarantees and then change it, it's always been this way, and it works. 3 for the rifle, 5 for the shooter, any variation of that is personal preference.

You face hostility because you are crossed your arms and proclaimed, "doesn't count" so as I said before, fuck off, go to bench rest central they will embrace your thinking. But that is in no way, shape, or form how the majority of us operate.

If I chronograph my rifle with 5 shots at 100 I get one number, if I chronograph 50 shots that number changes slightly, sure it will depend on the ammo, and if I was handloading I would be testing more in the beginning. But once the process is established once the method is determined to be solid, we take shortcuts. We are not writing peer-reviewed scientific papers, most of us know if I post a 5 shot group what I am saying. Posting 5 versions of it is a waste of time, a picture speaks 1000 words. There is your sample size, translate it.

You have a process that process includes a high-speed spreadsheet with all kinds of data, I don't care that much about my information to sweat it. It's unnecessary in my world, so stop trying to put that OCD on everyone. Not everyone wants to approach shooting like a science experiment. Some do it because they enjoy it and don't want to treat it like a job or science class.

These debates are tired, they are unproductive, and sitting there repeating, "sample size", "doesn't count", is tedious and a bigger waste of everyone's time because maybe 2 people will agree with you and do it. The majority won't shoot 5 and you want 20, smart hill to die on... 1996 called and wants their 15 minutes back.

PS weaponized math was designed to shoot less, instead of wasting 10 rounds to dope a rifle we wanted to do it in 3, the smaller sample size was to move more people through effectively. We designed it to fix reconning by fire on a target when a person is missing information. This gets you on in 1 shot, less shooting.

 

[theLBC]

while at the range and walking up to our targets during a break, the stranger next to me beamed with delight a the one big hole he had made.
he glanced over at my target, and i guess he couldn't help but ask "is there something wrong with your rifle?"
i told him for a dollar a round, i was gonna make a new fucking hole.

 

[Jsp556]

After getting a sub moa capable gun, getting Professional instruction from a competent instructor will get you there fastest and be cheaper in the long run. I got tired of spending money on ammo and getting shitty results so I enrolled in basic long range class that focused on gas guns. That was the best $600 I’ve spent on shooting. When my oldest boy decided he wanted a large frame semi I paid and sent him to a basic Long range class with a 16” 308 MWS and 400 rounds of ammo. He came back with good fundamentals, DOPE, and confidence in his ability to shoot the gun. Worth every penny.

People want for free what others have paid to learn.

 

[TangoSierra916]

How about this,

Just create a 1/2 MOA dot semi auto target, as Semi is not a Benchrest gun, wanting to shoot one like a benchrest gun or F Class rifle is silly we don't operate that way

Make a 1/2 MOA dot drill, one shot per just like most practical shooter tend to engage

@lowlight - I like the approach and standard of a one shot per dot firing cadence. For this approach do you think there should be a time limit set to all x amount of shots (example: 15 shots in 30 seconds) or should they be taken in a benchrest manner?

since one big pro of the semi platform is efficiency, I’m curious as to what your “ideal” approach/standard to the dots should be and if time is a valuable element in the evaluation?

 

[RUTGERS95]

After getting a sub moa capable gun, getting Professional instruction from a competent instructor will get you there fastest and be cheaper in the long run. I got tired of spending money on ammo and getting shitty results so I enrolled in basic long range class that focused on gas guns. That was the best $600 I’ve spent on shooting. When my oldest boy decided he wanted a large frame semi I paid and sent him to a basic Long range class with a 16” 308 MWS and 400 rounds of ammo. He came back with good fundamentals, DOPE, and confidence in his ability to shoot the gun. Worth every penny.

People want for free what others have paid to learn.

what class did you send him to?

 

[Jsp556]

what class did you send him to?

PM’d you the info. He was a USMC marksmanship instructor and shot on the rifle team.

 

[Formosan]

600 yards, 20 shots, same home made rifle with an 18" WOA barrel, same load I was testing. This time only the 1st shot went left 0.2 mils. Lots of experience in this thread. Does anyone know why a rifle might have a cold bore POI change sometimes 0, 1, 2, or even 3 shots? Would love to know and get it fixed. TYIA.

 

[TonyTheTiger]

600 yards, 20 shots, same home made rifle with an 18" WOA barrel, same load I was testing. This time only the 1st shot went left 0.2 mils. Lots of experience in this thread. Does anyone know why a rifle might have a cold bore POI change sometimes 0, 1, 2, or even 3 shots? Would love to know and get it fixed. TYIA.

View attachment 7515844

At 600yds with a 223? Chances are good that bullet went by a rabbit while it farted.

 

[ma smith]

This time only the 1st shot went left 0.2 mils...

Being off .2mils isn't a flier, but maybe its a language thing?

 

[Near miss]

I do not think Ledzep is trying to drive whole forum to shoot only 20 shot groups, just for those occasions where someone really wants to prove his rifle shoots. If you show a 5 shot group under moa, it just shows you have managed to shoot 5 round group into moa. It does now show you can do it continually.

As an analogy, LL, me and LZ could take a race to see which one can drink most beers.
We all drink 5 beers. And leave it at that. LZ and I think we should drink far more beers before factually knowing who can drink most so we want to continue, but LL chooses not to because drinking too many beers is waste of time and costs too much money.

Although Frank can drink many beers, he says that most people at the bar want to drink beer for fun and do not really care about their real drinking performance to join the race. But LZ says they should not either then claim that they can drink that and that many beers, without ever drinking more than 5 at a time. Then we start throwing darts and chronographing them into excel.

 

[Lowlight]

@TangoSierra916

The dot drill is shot is a variety of ways time can be included

1 row do the up and down drill you start standing behind the rifle on the clock drop and fire one round resetting between every shot 15 seconds , 12 sec , 10, 8, 6...

The variations are numerous

 

[Lowlight]

The problem is the process it’s too long and drawn out we’ll suffer from boredom if you don’t shorten it and mix it up

The problem with LZ and anyone who wants these things to be proven is, you’re asking people to prove they don’t suck.

You’re not as good as you think you are, which we all know is the case, but you want me to go through an effort that makes me look bad.

You are working against human interest, nobody wants to demonstrate how bad they are, we design it to look better. Human nature why fight it.

Why not just demand a deep pocket gun company provide 10 shot proof targets fir every rifle. Eliminate the shooter make the process include a fixture with a ten shot group before shipping.

You’re moving the goal post again, the question was, what’s a good semi platform and once some one answers you yell liar prove you can shoot to me. So you start off questioning the shooter and his gear sight unseen. As most noted we normally try to establish credible sources, then use those sources. Now you say, doesn’t count.


The fact you don’t see the negative side is odd, but it shouldn’t be. We aren’t professional shooters in most cases. Even they miss. I watched a multi million dollar football player drop 5 passes in one game. He had a bad day, now you want to weaponize that possibly by forcing a person to prove it on your command.

Say a person does 4x5 at .38” and then group 5 is .72” do you go A HA you failed or congratulate them ? That is the hanging question and why you rarely see 10 or 20 shot groups.

Today we know enough to identify the direction of the fliers more than the distance. The distance varies the directions usually create a pattern which is a better piece of info to me.

 

[Lowlight]

As an example take my Kraft target

I know what shot and where the flier came from,

my RRS leveling base is slipping. I don’t use it to shoot off normally but did for this. I am not cranking it tight enough and it slips under recoil. That was shot in the sitting.

the distance is bad, but I also know I tend to pull right when I screw up. So this tells me my trigger screwup if there was one was enough to slip the base and drove me a minute right. I will look at the video see if I snatched that shot trying to time my wobble.

the distance is only important it’s outside the group. The why is most important what do i need to do to fix it.

my biggest fight is breathing so I look forward vertical spread

 

[Newbie2020]

I like the dot drill to test the shooter. Especially w the time element. And if we add the Kraft drill hat seems like a comprehensive assessment of the shooter and a good metric to test shooter capability over time.

I also like @lowlight comment about only needing a few shots to know if the shooter-rifle system is functional, especially for a seasoned shooter using a relatively familiar platform.

New shooter or unfamiliar platform is a different question. But if Frank freaking Galli isn’t grouping a new rifle after three rounds, there’s something off, and it ain’t Frank.

 

[Lowlight]

The point being is, you use human nature in a positive way vs working against our natural tendencies.

asking someone to out themselves never works, you work towards our strengths and people respond. It’s that or solve a problem and telling people they are doing it wrong because, well statistics, just turns people off.

 

[Mike_Honcho]

Huh....the OP was asking about rifles, not shooters' struggles....most of what is being discussed is about achieving consistency...seems like a lot of what is missed is that each shooter has to put in the work so as to be able to intuit / feel / know when they are in the correct position to promote such consistency -> accuracy...the rounds simply verify. 20 round groups? At what point was the ability to accomplish the task proven? Sounds subjective after the first one. 20 individual targets seems like a better test of accomplishing the task...but I could be wrong.

 

[theLBC]

as frank illustrated, the only way to fairly know a rifle's potential for accuracy (with a given ammo) is in a fixture.
as frank also illustrates, in a gas gun there is movement of components that can affect poa and poi.

so notice in the fixture that the rifle is clamped in and not allowed to move in any direction except straight back and forward.
they are not resting the rifle on sled, letting the rifle go back and forth and assuming no other movement will occur to affect poa or poi.

while it seems i am alone on this, i try to be a fixture.

 

[Bolo]

After four pages... I hesitate even bringing this up, for fear of being labeled old school and behind the times.
I know, a little offtopic from the OP, but virtually no shooter going from a bolt to an AR is gonna get half-MOA without practice... regardless of what the rifle is capable of.

Number one drill I used during PMI to get shooters back on track was straight out of basic training:
Dime and Washer drills.

If you can do ten in a row, you've worked out 99% of the quirks in an AR platform.

 

[theLBC]

 

[gunsnjeeps]

Since I shoot a different game I tend to stick with hardware not targets as much. My thoughts are that a 20 round group represents .6% of barrel life assuming 3000 rounds (the end of barrel life for a Service Rifle). There are shooters who can hold about 1 MOA at 600 yards with a .75 MOA rifle, see 200- high X count scores. With that same rifle I can hold a 2 to 3 MOA group, 180 to 190 with a 6 to 9X count. Any shooting with a hand on the rifle tests the system, both shooter and rifle.

This is how you test a rifle or ammo:

 

[Mike4837]

After getting a sub moa capable gun, getting Professional instruction from a competent instructor will get you there fastest and be cheaper in the long run. I got tired of spending money on ammo and getting shitty results so I enrolled in basic long range class that focused on gas guns. That was the best $600 I’ve spent on shooting. When my oldest boy decided he wanted a large frame semi I paid and sent him to a basic Long range class with a 16” 308 MWS and 400 rounds of ammo. He came back with good fundamentals, DOPE, and confidence in his ability to shoot the gun. Worth every penny.

People want for free what others have paid to learn.

I can’t recommend this enough. I’ve taken Franks class twice. First with a bolt rifle and last summer with my AR10. Having a professional who knows how to do what you’re trying to accomplish yourself and coach you through the process is the best money you can spend in any discipline. And as Marc says, there always has to be one gas gun in every class. Ha

 

[Criver600]

as frank illustrated, the only way to fairly know a rifle's potential for accuracy (with a given ammo) is in a fixture.
as frank also illustrates, in a gas gun there is movement of components that can affect poa and poi.

so notice in the fixture that the rifle is clamped in and not allowed to move in any direction except straight back and forward.
they are not resting the rifle on sled, letting the rifle go back and forth and assuming no other movement will occur to affect poa or poi.

while it seems i am alone on this, i try to be a fixture.

I'm disagreeing with Frank on this. I don't need a fixture to test my rifles.
What I whole heartedly agree with Frank on is get your no-shooting ass's out to the range. How many barrels have you worn out? Testing, training, at a match? GUN TIME!
As far as accuracy potential for a Precision AR? Call Theresa at Compass Lake, White Oak,etc get a Krieger or Bartlein blank, Federal 69 grain GMM and now you don't have any excuses. Wear that barrel out, then get another, repeat.

 

[theLBC]

I'm disagreeing with Frank on this. I don't need a fixture to test my rifles.
What I whole heartedly agree with Frank on is get your no-shooting ass's out to the range. How many barrels have you worn out? Testing, training, at a match? GUN TIME!
As far as accuracy potential for a Precision AR? Call Theresa at Compass Lake, White Oak,etc get a Krieger or Bartlein blank, Federal 69 grain GMM and now you don't have any excuses. Wear that barrel out, then get another, repeat.

he isn't really saying that you need one, he is saying not everyone shoots with the same level of skill for every single shot.

 

[Lowlight]

Basically all the accuracy stuff we currently use includes the shooter, and the shooter is the weak link. When asking about a particular rifle in terms of potential, we really take a lot on faith. Very few companies today offer Proof Targets, I think because of CNC machines more than anything else,

They know the process is sound, the parts are built to a standard, so they take it on faith everything was assembled correctly.

Outside of a semi auto, let’s look at the Ruger RPR, every once in a while you would read about a lemon that hit the streets. Out of the box the gun doesn’t shoot. My advice to many when this happened, take it apart, then put it back together correctly, with the proper torque then see. 99% were better after, bad assembly. Fixed a lot of otherwise disappointing rifles by simply rebuilding it with an ounce more care. The parts are fine the assembly sucked,

Proof targets would help, but then again they hurt too when things tend to hover around a minute.

We are the wildcard, we are usually the problem, doesn’t mean things don;t go wrong, you just need to know where to focus your effort. That is part of the point, 20 shots might tell a story, but to me it tells too much of the same story and the parts that vary don’t really help me shoot better.

 

[Rocketvapor]

I enjoy reading and learning from the good shooters.
Thanks.
I still consider myself to be a NEW shooter only being a few years deep into this and not putting much time into it lately. I shoot to develop a skill much like bowlers and golfers. Included in this quest for skill is as much of the assembly, and reloading as I can include. I can remember being less good at this
Go out to the 100yd range and try to work up a load, most of which has been negated as I got a little better. Hard to tell if a group was your poor shooting, or the powder charge, or the primer, or the moon. Now that I is good I can work more on this decreasing spiral of Shooter, Gun, Ammo.
I hope to be back out to the 600yd range soon and work on my wind calling but for now it's 100

 

[whatsupdoc]

I have personally seen a POS ARStoner 16" upper with the front sight bridge cut off and a cheap free floating
handguard on a stock mil trigger lower topped off with a 1x4 optic shoot 10 rounds into 4.5 inches at 385 yards.
TWICE in a row.

Other times I see a guys shooting a high end gasers that cant hold 3" at 100 bitching the rifle or the ammo
is the problem yet they refuse to take any advice cause they are experts.

 

[Mike_Honcho]

This is how you test a rifle or ammo:
View attachment 7516517

Let's check out that fixture.

 

[Mike_Honcho]

I have personally seen a POS ARStoner 16" upper with the front sight bridge cut off and a cheap free floating
handguard on a stock mil trigger lower topped off with a 1x4 optic shoot 10 rounds into 4.5 inches at 385 yards.
TWICE in a row.

Other times I see a guys shooting a high end gasers that cant hold 3" at 100 bitching the rifle or the ammo
is the problem yet they refuse to take any advice cause they are experts.

Advice and instruction is key but it doesn't matter if were talking about being able to call a shot and see it hit in real time, watch the muzzle through the arc of recoil and prestage the trigger, seamless mag changes in the peripheral, knowing the distance you can make A zone hits by index only, or the distance you can make As on the sprint and and what angle - it's the work that allows one to pick up on and do the little things. Shoot the same spot enough in all manner of conditions, you can call wind from behind the steering wheel too.

 

[theLBC]

 

[Lowlight]

This all is started because someone read the almost meaningless statistics post on the PRB,

So when you have a 3 part series of articles talking statistics as if it would have a bearing on your shooting You have to suffer silliness. As if reading the article and deciding I need a bigger sample size is gonna help people who can;t execute the basics anyway. It loads their lip and allows them to come off educated about shooting.

For some reason people enjoy reading posts about statistical probabilities that really say a ton of nothing because as soon as you stick a live body on the other side of the equation all those figures change dramatically. So let’s just do more bad shooting because stacking errors works so well, and Maybe if I crunch enough numbers I’ll some how hit the target I have been missing.

So armed with new values, guys want to repeat the data because too many think numbers make you sound smart,

yes for 100+ years shooters have been doing business with less than the appropriate amount of scientific data to back up our claims. Instead we hold a picture up, one which everyone already knows what it means.

I put X amount of bullets in this amount of space under these conditions on this day at that moment, at this distance with the following systeM.

 

[Lowlight]

I remember years ago, during the height of the TAC OPS WARS

Someone called Federal and tried asking the accuracy standard on a box of ammo to refute Mike. They tried to say, Federal won’t say their ammo will hold a 1/4 MOA so you can’t say your rifle will.

These conversations repeat all the time in some form or another.

It’s one of the reasons why people want a consistent model and at the same time it‘s the reason you see less than less companies talk about accuracy. They know any claim made will be used against them with today’s social media climate

 

[houndog]

And at some point I suppose all of this just becomes a meaningless reverse d*ck measuring contest of whose groups are smaller. "My gun shoots .7 MOA". "Well, mine shoots .6 MOA". Even at 900 or 1000 yards .1-.2 MOA isn't going to make much difference in whether you're going to be able to hit a target. A lot more important to have solid dopes and be able to read the wind.

And there's a lot more to being a good well rounded shooter than just shooting a piece of paper, at 100 yards, off a bench or prone with a bipod, a rear bag and no time limit. Can you shoot sitting? From less than ideal positions? With time pressure? Transitioning between different distances? Hell, how about putting multiple rounds on a target offhand with a red dot in under 4 seconds?

 

[Ironman8]

It’s been cited several times that 3 tests the gun and 5 tests the shooter. So when it comes to load development, do you guys that reload, test with 3 or 5 to find the optimum charge? (I know this isn’t the reloading forum, but I think the question applies to squeezing out the most accuracy possible - handloads)

 

[Ledzep]

It’s been cited several times that 3 tests the gun and 5 tests the shooter. So when it comes to load development, do you guys that reload, test with 3 or 5 to find the optimum charge? (I know this isn’t the reloading forum, but I think the question applies to squeezing out the most accuracy possible - handloads)

Charge weight in fine increments (less than a grain) is not likely to affect dispersion significantly enough to matter. Somewhere in what I've posted before people think I'm saying you need to shoot 20 shots at every charge weight.. That's not it. I've shot 20-50 shots at every charge weight and now I can tell you that you don't have to. In my experience you're better off doing 1gr or 1.5gr increments and testing more shots per group (10-15 bare minimum) Like I've said before in this thread, 20 gives you a very good picture. 35-50 will tell you absolutely. You don't NEED 20+ to get a feel for it, though. 10-15 will tell you if it's dog shit. May or may not tell you the true limit of precision. If that makes sense.. it will tell you bad, but doesn't necessarily tell you "how good" unless you shoot a larger sample. I've done ladder tests with 35 shots at each charge weight with like 7 different powders in 6.5 Creedmoor and the all that happens is dispersion gets worse with more pressure.

IMO the best way to go about it is to pick a bullet, case, primer, and powder (pick a powder that's popular with that cartridge-- it usually is for a reason) then take 1.5gr off of the max book charge, seat the bullets .020-.060 off the lands (pick a number), load and go. If you like the results great. If you don't, change the powder type or change the bullets/bullet lot.

YMMV. In all of my testing I've never seen 'nodes'. Just dispersion trending worse with increased charge weight.. You'll see several posts back how slow my 140gr bullets were going for that 1/2 MOA 20 shot group. 24" Barrel.

Or tell me that you have a bunch of 5 shot groups that prove a "high node"......

P.S. For everyone who's finding sinusoidal "node" results from 3-5 shot group testing:

Noisy data - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

 

[gunsnjeeps]

It’s been cited several times that 3 tests the gun and 5 tests the shooter. So when it comes to load development, do you guys that reload, test with 3 or 5 to find the optimum charge? (I know this isn’t the reloading forum, but I think the question applies to squeezing out the most accuracy possible - handloads)

Not that I'd call what I do scientific but I will test in 5 round lots. In my early reloading days I was still using iron sights and either put the rifle on bags or put a bag under my hand and the forend when using a sling. Now I usually use bags then shoot the picked load with a sling (no bag).

 

[Dthomas3523]

It’s been cited several times that 3 tests the gun and 5 tests the shooter. So when it comes to load development, do you guys that reload, test with 3 or 5 to find the optimum charge? (I know this isn’t the reloading forum, but I think the question applies to squeezing out the most accuracy possible - handloads)

This depends on a lot.

How meticulous is your brass prep? Are you making sure all the shoulders are bumped the same? Are you checking the neck ID with a pin gauge? Are you brushing/lubing the neck? Are you using a hydro press to make sure seating pressure (friction and ID) are the same across the board?

Are you dropping powder to the kernel?

Are you making sure your rounds don’t cook in the chamber? Are you monitoring your barrel temp and firing them all around the same temp? Are you making sure you didn’t take your ammo out the 70deg truck, sit it out in 25deg air and not let the ammo get to a uniform temp so that you’re not firing ammo of different temps?

If you’re doing all that stuff, your confidence level can be higher with smaller sample sizes. The less of the above you do, the the more rounds you need for confidence.

Sliding scale. More work at loading bench = less work on range and vice versa.

When I actually want to test velocity, I get very tedious with the above. I have seen my 3-5 shot strings stay very close to my 20+ shot strings. Close enough to use the 3-5 shot strings to eliminate lesser performing charge weights.


As stated above, for practical shooting, it’s just as good to pick a speed, make sure your brass prep/powder drop gives you and acceptable ES, tune groups via seating depth, and go shoot.

 

[Formosan]

This depends on a lot.

How meticulous is your brass prep? Are you making sure all the shoulders are bumped the same? Are you checking the neck ID with a pin gauge? Are you brushing/lubing the neck? Are you using a hydro press to make sure seating pressure (friction and ID) are the same across the board?

Are you dropping powder to the kernel?

Are you making sure your rounds don’t cook in the chamber? Are you monitoring your barrel temp and firing them all around the same temp? Are you making sure you didn’t take your ammo out the 70deg truck, sit it out in 25deg air and not let the ammo get to a uniform temp so that you’re not firing ammo of different temps?

If you’re doing all that stuff, your confidence level can be higher with smaller sample sizes. The less of the above you do, the the more rounds you need for confidence.

Sliding scale. More work at loading bench = less work on range and vice versa.

When I actually want to test velocity, I get very tedious with the above. I have seen my 3-5 shot strings stay very close to my 20+ shot strings. Close enough to use the 3-5 shot strings to eliminate lesser performing charge weights.


As stated above, for practical shooting, it’s just as good to pick a speed, make sure your brass prep/powder drop gives you and acceptable ES, tune groups via seating depth, and go shoot.

This is the advise I followed about a year ago when I started loading for precision and it has been spot on.

As a recreational shooter that likes to shoot much more than reload, I do very little in the way of brass prep and checks and am happy with the results.

Thank you for your guidance.

 

[MontanaMan]

This depends on a lot.

How meticulous is your brass prep? Are you making sure all the shoulders are bumped the same? Are you checking the neck ID with a pin gauge? Are you brushing/lubing the neck? Are you using a hydro press to make sure seating pressure (friction and ID) are the same across the board?

Are you dropping powder to the kernel?

Are you making sure your rounds don’t cook in the chamber? Are you monitoring your barrel temp and firing them all around the same temp? Are you making sure you didn’t take your ammo out the 70deg truck, sit it out in 25deg air and not let the ammo get to a uniform temp so that you’re not firing ammo of different temps?

If you’re doing all that stuff, your confidence level can be higher with smaller sample sizes. The less of the above you do, the the more rounds you need for confidence.

Sliding scale. More work at loading bench = less work on range and vice versa.

When I actually want to test velocity, I get very tedious with the above. I have seen my 3-5 shot strings stay very close to my 20+ shot strings. Close enough to use the 3-5 shot strings to eliminate lesser performing charge weights.


As stated above, for practical shooting, it’s just as good to pick a speed, make sure your brass prep/powder drop gives you and acceptable ES, tune groups via seating depth, and go shoot.

Why are you worried about all that nonsensical stuff when our benefactor says he's doing the below with factory ammo?

If I can't drive a Gasser to 1/2 MOA or better with Factory... I move on.

But I know I can drive one better than most, the driver is 3x more important in AR accuracy than a bolt action rifle

Today's semi's should easily be 5/8s or under with factory ammo, that should be the standard for a precision AR.

MM

 

[Rocketvapor]

This "one shot, one kill", then you get to rotate out is nice.
But one shot one kill every minute for an hour might be more realistic training.
One day I'll be able to shoot a clean @ 600 then I might move to 1000.

Shooting at steel, not just for the ding can be fun. Waste of ammo, but fun.
While 100yds is nothing, I can remember when I was shooting 25, then 50 then - - with a mini 14
Here's one shot at steel then using the impact as a POA for 10 more (3600 inches away) waiting for the range to go cold so I could put out paper (NOT with the Mini 14).
1/2" or 5/8" rebar ??? holding the plate, .224 splatters.

Then 60 shots, again at just 100. Video with the zoom and I can verbalize pulls and review later.

I always have the camera at the range. Not much use though when shooting a shotmarket

 

[Triple D]

I probably should have stopped after the 4th group, when I had the magical 20rds. Group 4, bottom right was 140eld handloads. All others were Hornady AG 140’s, with group 5 being in the center. I did experience a feed issue during the final group, but I think switching the bullet/powder combo may have impacted more. Either way, this is what I expect from a gas gun, sans the final group.

Shot using a bipod and a small rear squeeze bag.

Sighter group with handloads since I swapped scopes to this rifle. I only adjusted down 2mils, so the L/R point of impact remained the same as the other handload group.

 

[diderr]

I built a 1/2 moa load with my Mk12 clone with a CLE Douglas barrel. I had a ballistic advantage and that was about 1 moa