I often hear that you can't shoot a gas gun like you shoot a bolt action. Can anyone explain to me what that really means? Aren't the fundamentals of point of aim, sight picture, trigger squeeze the same? What is it about shooting a gas gun that is fundamentally different than shooting a bolt action?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Shooting a gas gun isn't like shooting a bolt action.... Explain this to me please
- Thread starter bhart89
- Start date
It requires a better command of the fundamentals. Most people fail to properly follow through with the trigger on a bolt gun, failing to do so with a gas gun is an issue.
A bolt gun is much more forgiving to poor execution of the fundamentals, a gas gun will exploit this due to the multiple recoil pulses.
A bolt gun is much more forgiving to poor execution of the fundamentals, a gas gun will exploit this due to the multiple recoil pulses.
You'll often hear guys talk about the "recoil impulse" of a semi automatic rifle. It's physics. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
When you fire a bolt gun, you just feel the reaction to the round going down the tube (recoil in the traditional sense).
When you fire a semi automatic rifle, you get traditional recoil (the force going into your shoulder), but the rifle has to move the bolt carrier back to extract the spent case, allow enough dwell time for a new round to be queued up, and chamber the new round. I'm sure there are more eloquent ways of explaining it (and I probably missed a step or two), but that's the basic idea.
When you fire a bolt gun, you just feel the reaction to the round going down the tube (recoil in the traditional sense).
When you fire a semi automatic rifle, you get traditional recoil (the force going into your shoulder), but the rifle has to move the bolt carrier back to extract the spent case, allow enough dwell time for a new round to be queued up, and chamber the new round. I'm sure there are more eloquent ways of explaining it (and I probably missed a step or two), but that's the basic idea.
Well, I was going to chime in and talk about my experiences last year making the transition. But, you've got the Chairman of the Board here giving his input in a more succinct fashion than i would have, and with more face validity.
In my opinion there is not a lot of difference, unless you are trying to rapid fire. If your fundamentals are strong and you take your time between shots you will find the transition easy. As stated before though if your basic shooting skills are lacking the semi-auto will show this quickly.
You have the key right there IMO Raptor, "unless you are trying to rapid fire". IMO the fundamentals are the same, however I feel that I and others tend to rush shots in a string because you dont work the bolt. If every time you rebuild your position and pay attention you can shoot a semi great. I would recommend if you are new to a precision semi to shoot it one round at a time, loading a new round each shot for a little bit to make yourself rebuild your position and concentrate. After you get used to the feel of the rifle and think you wont rush, then use it in a semi fashion for 5 round groups.
This is strictly what helped me slow down, hope it helps
This is strictly what helped me slow down, hope it helps
I'm not sure what kind of auto loader your looking at, but I've had to spend far more time getting my M14 dialed than any other bolt gun. Additionally, I've spent far more money to get it to shoot under 1 MOA. Same goes for my AR, but not as bad as the M14. Over time though, they're both kick butt rifles.
I think the posts listed above mine have covered the fundamentals very well.
I think the posts listed above mine have covered the fundamentals very well.
Odd...I don't see any difference between bolt and semi. Seems that "semi's are harder to shoot" is simply an excuse to be a crappy shot.
Ditto! Bolt guns don't "move, after the "shot".In a more specific "tone". When you shoot a bolt gun, the "force" extends to the barrel, during the "impulse" of the "blast", of the firing of the round. That impulse "moves the barrel" in a sign curve "power impulse", up the barrel. This happens in milli-seconds. Now "imagine", the affect of "Machinery moving", as does a "gas gun"when it recycles a round,on this movement of the barrel' It "simply" affects the impulse of the barrel, and "therefor" the "accuracy" of the gun.Some would say that the bullet has "already left the barrel" I'm not so sure.We're going to argue this, till the cow's come home.
Last edited:
I agree with this, since I too have found on occasion that it is easier to squeeze off that next round quickly without settling into position properly. I've found that I can lose my mental focus if I don't take a breath and slow it down a bit.
In a modern cartridge as the .308, approximately 1.5 milliseconds passes from the moment the firing pin hits the primer
and the bullet leaves the bore. And using Proof barrels of 24 inches as the standard.
Anything done by the shooter to the rifle after that 1.5 milliseconds has no influence on that bullet's trajectory. From basic fundamentals,
trigger follow through, or the spotter consistently shoving a pineapple up the shooter's bum at exactly 1.593msec will not influence the trajectory.
[red]IT'S EVERYTHING AT THE EXACT MOMENT THAT THE FIRING PIN HITS THE PRIMER THAT COUNTS.[/red] After @ 1.5 thousandths of a second it's too late.
And all of the gasser mechanics that is happening in that @ 1.5 thousandths of a second doesn't add up a hair in the pimple on a gnats ass. How can that be, you ask?
Because if it did matter NOT EVEN BRUCE LEE WAS FUCKING FAST ENOUGH TO COMPENSATE FOR THEM. [marklevinvoice]There, I said it.[/marklevinvoice]
edited: I did not change the words in my post. I only capitalized one complete sentence. That sentence already covers much in the replies to it.
and the bullet leaves the bore. And using Proof barrels of 24 inches as the standard.
Anything done by the shooter to the rifle after that 1.5 milliseconds has no influence on that bullet's trajectory. From basic fundamentals,
trigger follow through, or the spotter consistently shoving a pineapple up the shooter's bum at exactly 1.593msec will not influence the trajectory.
[red]IT'S EVERYTHING AT THE EXACT MOMENT THAT THE FIRING PIN HITS THE PRIMER THAT COUNTS.[/red] After @ 1.5 thousandths of a second it's too late.
And all of the gasser mechanics that is happening in that @ 1.5 thousandths of a second doesn't add up a hair in the pimple on a gnats ass. How can that be, you ask?
Because if it did matter NOT EVEN BRUCE LEE WAS FUCKING FAST ENOUGH TO COMPENSATE FOR THEM. [marklevinvoice]There, I said it.[/marklevinvoice]
edited: I did not change the words in my post. I only capitalized one complete sentence. That sentence already covers much in the replies to it.
Last edited:
True, but this is where the make up is different. Gas guns have moving parts...and lots of them. The bolt gun does not per se. In order for the gas gun to be precise shot after shot, everything needs to come to rest in the same exact spot as the prior shot. Hence, having to spend a fortune to get it to do so....at least closer, that is. Consistency is key with your fundamentals, but with the rifle as well!
We are absolutely fast enough to influence and people do all the time. I have taught specific classes to .gov & .mil using the SR25/ Mk11/M110 and you can see it happening. Over 500 different people shooting just these rifles.
We are so reactive to the sound of the shot we flinch, we tap the trigger, we crush the trigger all before the bullet leaves the bore.
Anecdotally when I took the Robert Gradous Gunsmithing class I can say I had no experience in using a lathe or any machining, however when I was threading I was using the "sound' of the machine to stop the cut, backing off the threading. It was remarked and noted how consistently I was able to stop the cut at the same place on the digital readout at the top of the lathe. I was never looking at it, was watching the cut, but I was able to stop it better than 4 places past the decimal over and over. I was consisting hitting the same mark, without any experience.
People can and do upset the harmonics of the shot before hand. We are that fast, and it because of our body's reaction to sound.
There are a lot of subconscious action going on with mind, like a Flinch... Shorter barrels and brakes are louder and cause people to flinch more, they react to the noise and will beat the bullet with their movement in response.
If you want a true world example of being fast enough, if you ever saw or heard of a person double tapping with a 308 gasser, its because they dont' follow through, the heavier bolt carrier brings the whole rifle back into their finger which is now off the trigger and it fires again. People will complain the trigger is fucked when it is in fact the shooter. This was well discussed when the Army went to the M110. The troop using it were not as solid on the trigger and would double tap, then blame the gun. It was all shooter error.
Bad fundamentals are much more wide spread and so automatic in the human brain, we certainly move much faster than you would realize because we are not thinking about. Throwing a Bruce Lee punch in silent room is not the same as the speed which we react to a loud BANG!
We are so reactive to the sound of the shot we flinch, we tap the trigger, we crush the trigger all before the bullet leaves the bore.
Anecdotally when I took the Robert Gradous Gunsmithing class I can say I had no experience in using a lathe or any machining, however when I was threading I was using the "sound' of the machine to stop the cut, backing off the threading. It was remarked and noted how consistently I was able to stop the cut at the same place on the digital readout at the top of the lathe. I was never looking at it, was watching the cut, but I was able to stop it better than 4 places past the decimal over and over. I was consisting hitting the same mark, without any experience.
People can and do upset the harmonics of the shot before hand. We are that fast, and it because of our body's reaction to sound.
There are a lot of subconscious action going on with mind, like a Flinch... Shorter barrels and brakes are louder and cause people to flinch more, they react to the noise and will beat the bullet with their movement in response.
If you want a true world example of being fast enough, if you ever saw or heard of a person double tapping with a 308 gasser, its because they dont' follow through, the heavier bolt carrier brings the whole rifle back into their finger which is now off the trigger and it fires again. People will complain the trigger is fucked when it is in fact the shooter. This was well discussed when the Army went to the M110. The troop using it were not as solid on the trigger and would double tap, then blame the gun. It was all shooter error.
Bad fundamentals are much more wide spread and so automatic in the human brain, we certainly move much faster than you would realize because we are not thinking about. Throwing a Bruce Lee punch in silent room is not the same as the speed which we react to a loud BANG!
It only applies to those trying to shoot small groups, not those that stand and fire at milk jugs at 100 yds or shoot off the tailgate of a truck.
Quick test to show the results of proper follow through, with an accurate AR, good ammo not 55gr or 62 fmj, a good rest rear bag and all, a good scope and trigger.
Shoot a 10 shot group, pull the trigger and let it reset immediately for 10 shots. Next shoot another 10 shoot group, pull the trigger and hold it back until the bullet hits the paper then let it reset. Compare the groups. To clarify, a good solid hold should be used, no free recoil.
Lock time is much slower on a AR than a bolt gun especially a Rem 700, that time is between the sear break and when the hammer hits the primer.
It's not about trying to do something in 1.5 thousandths of a second, it's about not moving during the lock time. Does the POA change from the break of the trigger to the time the bullet leaves the barrel?
Quick test to show the results of proper follow through, with an accurate AR, good ammo not 55gr or 62 fmj, a good rest rear bag and all, a good scope and trigger.
Shoot a 10 shot group, pull the trigger and let it reset immediately for 10 shots. Next shoot another 10 shoot group, pull the trigger and hold it back until the bullet hits the paper then let it reset. Compare the groups. To clarify, a good solid hold should be used, no free recoil.
Lock time is much slower on a AR than a bolt gun especially a Rem 700, that time is between the sear break and when the hammer hits the primer.
It's not about trying to do something in 1.5 thousandths of a second, it's about not moving during the lock time. Does the POA change from the break of the trigger to the time the bullet leaves the barrel?
If you wiggle at all from the time the trigger breaks until the bullet leaves the bore your POA will change no matter how hard you try to hold it. Flinching, letting the trigger reset or whatever causes the movement. I'm saying everything is more critical when shooting an AR, disagreeing with those saying it doesn't matter. The time the bullet travels down the bore is the same in a bolt gun or AR if the barrel is the same length. Bullet is gone before the carrier starts moving...or should be unless the rifle is over-gassed.
Lock Time is a factor for sure, for a stock AR trigger you have about 16 ms compared to a Remington Bolt Action which is 4 ms, so that is part of it. But the follow through is also a factor and where a lot of people go wrong. Again we react to that sound.
Because the bolt action is not cycling like a AR they forgive the follow through errors much more than an AR, especially a 308. Everything is bigger and heavier and causes more problems than a 5.56 version. This is why nobody saw an M4 double tap but hand them a M110 and it was double tap city. The mouse gun doesn't have the same mass to move the gun back into the shooter's finger to fire off another round. But the 308, being on Steroids does, and did.
Because the bolt action is not cycling like a AR they forgive the follow through errors much more than an AR, especially a 308. Everything is bigger and heavier and causes more problems than a 5.56 version. This is why nobody saw an M4 double tap but hand them a M110 and it was double tap city. The mouse gun doesn't have the same mass to move the gun back into the shooter's finger to fire off another round. But the 308, being on Steroids does, and did.
1) There's no way to keep absolutely still. We probably agree on that.
2) Good luck resetting the trigger while the bullet is still in the bore.
3) Not everything is more critical when shooting an AR, it's actually in many respects a very forgiving rifle to shoot.
4) Don't be so sure that the bullet is gone before the carrier starts moving, over-gassed or otherwise.
Last edited:
Like I said before it's about NOT MOVING. Not trying to let the trigger reset but any movement. Just like torque on the trigger effects the POI. You can't consciously try to do something during that short time frame but you can react and move if not correctly following through by trying to remain motionless and hold the rifle steady.
Watch a few high speed videos, the bullet is gone. If a rifle is so overgassed that the carrier is moving before the bullet leaves the muzzle accuracy is terrible.
Seems to me I heard about a bunch of 308 rifles where flames were coming out of the ejection port. They were over gassed, pressure still in the barrel when the bolt unlocked. The cases were covered with carbon, and accuracy was so bad they were returned to the company that made them.
I don't have time for an all night debate on what works and what doesn't or how we build and test our rifles. IMO many get away with slack shooting practices on a bolt gun, it takes more control...better form when shooting an AR.
just like Lowlight said-
"A bolt gun is much more forgiving to poor execution of the fundamentals, a gas gun will exploit this"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkXRtTqs_4A
Last edited:
Precision shooting any AR is a matter of consistent repeatability. Of course the shooter needs to fire each shot as exactly matching the preceding shots as possible. And because there are so many moving parts slamming around, and so many more things to vibrate in an AR, consistency is even more important.
A friend has a couple of Compass Lake made ARs. There may be other builders as good but I seriously doubt there are any better. The ARs are honest 1/4 moa rifles. We were both shooting one of his testing some new loads. Both of us shot tight, but my groups were more round, his were strung just a touch from bottom left to top right. It all came down to just a little different hold. He worked on it and a week later he was shooting nice round bugholes with that rifle and load.
Just the hold. Spin a bullet up a barrel and it torques the rifle. Not to noticeable with a 15, a bit more in a 10, very noticeable in my .338, and blatantly obvious with 400 gr solids in my Rigby. If you're shooting for bugholes with a 15, an inconsistent hold might allow open the groups up just from torque reaction. More likely with a 10. For sure with my .338 even though it is a fairly heavy bolt rifle.
And here is another thought. First round from a magazine in a lot of rifles tends to have a different POI, and I'm not talking clean cold bore shot either. Subsequent rounds loaded by normal cycling tend to group slightly differently. My experience is this is less noticeable in a really well tuned tight rifle, more noticeable in a looser rifle. Is the lockup slightly different, is the cartridge somehow chambered differently? Don't know, no way to measure it I know of. Lot of things slamming around in an AR. Does it cycle exactly the same every time. How about the trigger/firing mechanism? Does it strike with exactly the same force every time? Is the lock time exactly the same every time? is there a reason for the many match trigger assemblies?
Whole lot of variables in an AR, many more than a bolt rifle.
So I'll just say a consistent hold and trigger release are a very good place to start.
A friend has a couple of Compass Lake made ARs. There may be other builders as good but I seriously doubt there are any better. The ARs are honest 1/4 moa rifles. We were both shooting one of his testing some new loads. Both of us shot tight, but my groups were more round, his were strung just a touch from bottom left to top right. It all came down to just a little different hold. He worked on it and a week later he was shooting nice round bugholes with that rifle and load.
Just the hold. Spin a bullet up a barrel and it torques the rifle. Not to noticeable with a 15, a bit more in a 10, very noticeable in my .338, and blatantly obvious with 400 gr solids in my Rigby. If you're shooting for bugholes with a 15, an inconsistent hold might allow open the groups up just from torque reaction. More likely with a 10. For sure with my .338 even though it is a fairly heavy bolt rifle.
And here is another thought. First round from a magazine in a lot of rifles tends to have a different POI, and I'm not talking clean cold bore shot either. Subsequent rounds loaded by normal cycling tend to group slightly differently. My experience is this is less noticeable in a really well tuned tight rifle, more noticeable in a looser rifle. Is the lockup slightly different, is the cartridge somehow chambered differently? Don't know, no way to measure it I know of. Lot of things slamming around in an AR. Does it cycle exactly the same every time. How about the trigger/firing mechanism? Does it strike with exactly the same force every time? Is the lock time exactly the same every time? is there a reason for the many match trigger assemblies?
Whole lot of variables in an AR, many more than a bolt rifle.
So I'll just say a consistent hold and trigger release are a very good place to start.
I don't see the Cow's, yet. I'm getting some popcorn.And looking out, for pineapples. Ouch!
Last edited:
The problem here is that folks are arguing apples and oranges. The basics of rifle shooting remain the same between gas and bolt, namely breath control, trigger control, proper cheek weld, and follow through. What is potentially different is body position due to magazine length, and the physics involved in maintaining or resetting sight picture due to recoil based on barrel length and rifle weight. How you hold the rifle will also change due to whether or not you have a pistol grip. Those are just the specifics for dealing with your particular rifle. The fundamentals don't change, and they haven't since muzzle loading days.
The problem is not the "hold" most people on this site are talking about AR10 rifles and using a bipod with a rear bag or other support. Not shooting from an unsupported position.
Just as noted by @calimwulf, who is a perfect example, people may know the phrase, fundamentals of marksmanship, that doesn't mean they know what they are or how to properly execute them. The fundamentals are, Sight Picture, Breathing Natural Point of Aim, Trigger Control and Follow Through and are not to be confused with the elements of a good position. Those are different, most repeat some of the Seven Factors and 3 Elements which support the fundamentals, and often confuse the group creating a hybrid understanding. These factors can vary slightly from system to system as well as position to position, but they are all designed to support the proper application of the fundamentals of marksmanship.
As far as the Mk11 shooting flames out of the ejection port, I have seen this and most of the shooters are still able to maintain at least 1 MOA of accuracy out of them. Not great but not awful. This is where the other side of the bolt comes into the play the Buffer Spring. This part in the rifle determines the amount of time the bolt stays locked and how much gas will begin to move the bolt. David Tubb sells his flat wire heavy springs specifically to help function but to also assist in accuracy. How does the buffer spring affect accuracy if the system is moving after the bullet leaves, well it doesn't always. It control the hold on the bolt carrier group. Many stock springs are too weak and not correct so they allow the bolt carrier to begin moving, its not always over gassed, it's under sprung... by moving to a Tubb Flatwire spring you keep the system locked up longer. (that whole we can move just as fast thing) Hence more accuracy, like decreasing lock time so we can't beat it by replacing the trigger. Much of the inaccuracy of the Army rifles came from the suppressor, it is a 2 point system that attached at the end of the barrel and back at the gas block. By heating and cooling at different speeds of different metals, you affected the harmonics. Remove the suppressor you saw accuracy increase. There is a lot that goes into these systems, and no one thing is a magic fix, the shooter was just as much part of it.
I said before, AR15s and AR10s are apples and oranges. You often hear guys who think they are good with an AR15 argue against the quirks of an AR10, but they are there, its much more mass, a big, SLOWER bullet, and a lot more gas that move very fast. Having a weak buffer and that bolt carrier is moving and video an M4 is not showing the differences.
AR rifles in general are a giant tuning fork, how you address it, and the trigger matters. Even when shooting from a bipod, that movement at the trigger matters. Remember in a bolt action rifle, adding a canted base is about 1 thousandths of an inch at the receiver per 1 inch of movement at 100 yards. If we move any part of 1 thousandths of an inch at the trigger, or at the stock, we are adding that x100 at 100 yards. 20MOA bases aren't inches apart from a flat base, but about 15 thousandths of an inch different. We can certainly move fractions of that, and much more quickly then you might imagine.
Just as noted by @calimwulf, who is a perfect example, people may know the phrase, fundamentals of marksmanship, that doesn't mean they know what they are or how to properly execute them. The fundamentals are, Sight Picture, Breathing Natural Point of Aim, Trigger Control and Follow Through and are not to be confused with the elements of a good position. Those are different, most repeat some of the Seven Factors and 3 Elements which support the fundamentals, and often confuse the group creating a hybrid understanding. These factors can vary slightly from system to system as well as position to position, but they are all designed to support the proper application of the fundamentals of marksmanship.
As far as the Mk11 shooting flames out of the ejection port, I have seen this and most of the shooters are still able to maintain at least 1 MOA of accuracy out of them. Not great but not awful. This is where the other side of the bolt comes into the play the Buffer Spring. This part in the rifle determines the amount of time the bolt stays locked and how much gas will begin to move the bolt. David Tubb sells his flat wire heavy springs specifically to help function but to also assist in accuracy. How does the buffer spring affect accuracy if the system is moving after the bullet leaves, well it doesn't always. It control the hold on the bolt carrier group. Many stock springs are too weak and not correct so they allow the bolt carrier to begin moving, its not always over gassed, it's under sprung... by moving to a Tubb Flatwire spring you keep the system locked up longer. (that whole we can move just as fast thing) Hence more accuracy, like decreasing lock time so we can't beat it by replacing the trigger. Much of the inaccuracy of the Army rifles came from the suppressor, it is a 2 point system that attached at the end of the barrel and back at the gas block. By heating and cooling at different speeds of different metals, you affected the harmonics. Remove the suppressor you saw accuracy increase. There is a lot that goes into these systems, and no one thing is a magic fix, the shooter was just as much part of it.
I said before, AR15s and AR10s are apples and oranges. You often hear guys who think they are good with an AR15 argue against the quirks of an AR10, but they are there, its much more mass, a big, SLOWER bullet, and a lot more gas that move very fast. Having a weak buffer and that bolt carrier is moving and video an M4 is not showing the differences.
AR rifles in general are a giant tuning fork, how you address it, and the trigger matters. Even when shooting from a bipod, that movement at the trigger matters. Remember in a bolt action rifle, adding a canted base is about 1 thousandths of an inch at the receiver per 1 inch of movement at 100 yards. If we move any part of 1 thousandths of an inch at the trigger, or at the stock, we are adding that x100 at 100 yards. 20MOA bases aren't inches apart from a flat base, but about 15 thousandths of an inch different. We can certainly move fractions of that, and much more quickly then you might imagine.
And obewan speaks!
What I like, about this site, is that there are Guys, here, that REALLY know what they're talking about. Some times, they "lurk", and don't chime in. Some times they speak. I'm Listening. Thanks for the lesson, Lowlight. I appreciate you being here.
What I like, about this site, is that there are Guys, here, that REALLY know what they're talking about. Some times, they "lurk", and don't chime in. Some times they speak. I'm Listening. Thanks for the lesson, Lowlight. I appreciate you being here.
Last edited:
Great information here. Without a doubt we all react to that bang and very few poeple can control it, it's just the way our brains are wired. I've seen my share of shooters that react in anticipation of the bang flinching before or during trigger pull. New shooters are notorious for this, but even the most seasoned shooters do it from time to time. However all guns go bang so this is just as important on a bolt as a semi-auto. I think the biggest problem with semi-autos when your are going for pure accuracy is not taking the time between shots to settle back in. I know I get in a hurry sometimes and accuracy suffers as a result.
Last edited:
Has anyone here ever scientificly tested the decreased locktime which a ti firing pin is
used in an AR15?
used in an AR15?
A Ti firing pin in an AR does nothing, it's the hammer travel that matters.
Zediker / Tubb explored this and found it doesn't work.
Zediker / Tubb explored this and found it doesn't work.
Frank puts a finer point on things, discussing the principles of marksmanship or the lack thereof. I was more interested in examining, skill of marksmanship being equal, whether or not the hardness or firmness of hold affected the actual accuracy of the rifle. Does the hold dampen some of the mechanical harmonics? Does the consistency of the hold, whether prone, sitting or standing make the rifle itself more accurate. Did I explain that right?
IE, does one shooters technique actually make the rifle itself more accurate than that of another shooters technique? And what might the contributing factors be.
For myself, hopefully the first weekend in May I'll be able to make my first match in over a year and see if I can remember which end to point down range and find out how shaky I am. It'll be ugly no doubt. Fundamentals? First fundamental will be finding the range without getting lost.
IE, does one shooters technique actually make the rifle itself more accurate than that of another shooters technique? And what might the contributing factors be.
For myself, hopefully the first weekend in May I'll be able to make my first match in over a year and see if I can remember which end to point down range and find out how shaky I am. It'll be ugly no doubt. Fundamentals? First fundamental will be finding the range without getting lost.
Frank puts a finer point on things, discussing the principles of marksmanship or the lack thereof. I was more interested in examining, skill of marksmanship being equal, whether or not the hardness or firmness of hold affected the actual accuracy of the rifle. Does the hold dampen some of the mechanical harmonics? Does the consistency of the hold, whether prone, sitting or standing make the rifle itself more accurate. Did I explain that right?
IE, does one shooters technique actually make the rifle itself more accurate than that of another shooters technique? And what might the contributing factors be.
For myself, hopefully the first weekend in May I'll be able to make my first match in over a year and see if I can remember which end to point down range and find out how shaky I am. It'll be ugly no doubt. Fundamentals? First fundamental will be finding the range without getting lost.
IE, does one shooters technique actually make the rifle itself more accurate than that of another shooters technique? And what might the contributing factors be.
For myself, hopefully the first weekend in May I'll be able to make my first match in over a year and see if I can remember which end to point down range and find out how shaky I am. It'll be ugly no doubt. Fundamentals? First fundamental will be finding the range without getting lost.
All,
I shoot my AR exactly like I shoot my bolt gun. That's to say, I re-build my position from shot to shot cognizant of the five factors of a steady position. I do however perceive the AR requires more thoughtful application of follow through than my bolt gun, perhaps because the lock time is slower on my AR than my bolt gun. At any rate, a few years ago I replaced my two stage Jewell trigger with a GA two stage trigger. I was prompted to do this on advice from an AMU gunsmith who said the faster lock time of the GA trigger would likely boost my standing scores. It did, I went from an average of 92 percent to 96 percent. I don't think the GA trigger is a substitute for follow through; but, it certainly is an aid to good shooting. Now, back to this topic, I think if a shooter is able to manage consistent control over the rifle from shot to shot, whether bolt or AR gun, predictable recoil resistance will allow bullets to go where aimed. I also think it is less difficult to get consistent shot to shot control over an AR than it is using a bolt gun.
I shoot my AR exactly like I shoot my bolt gun. That's to say, I re-build my position from shot to shot cognizant of the five factors of a steady position. I do however perceive the AR requires more thoughtful application of follow through than my bolt gun, perhaps because the lock time is slower on my AR than my bolt gun. At any rate, a few years ago I replaced my two stage Jewell trigger with a GA two stage trigger. I was prompted to do this on advice from an AMU gunsmith who said the faster lock time of the GA trigger would likely boost my standing scores. It did, I went from an average of 92 percent to 96 percent. I don't think the GA trigger is a substitute for follow through; but, it certainly is an aid to good shooting. Now, back to this topic, I think if a shooter is able to manage consistent control over the rifle from shot to shot, whether bolt or AR gun, predictable recoil resistance will allow bullets to go where aimed. I also think it is less difficult to get consistent shot to shot control over an AR than it is using a bolt gun.
Last edited:
Guilty as charged, when I first got into the AR10 world a few years back, I figured it would be an easy transition. It was weird how it was harder, and I thought it shouldn't be. I will say that when I got my Premier things got a tad bit better, and all I can figure is the optic is more forgiving with non constant cheek weld placement.
After shooting the 308/6.5 ARs and go back to shooting any version of AR15/SCAR/ACR/AUG/whatever, they are so much easier to plink with. That recoil impulse is a bastard to overcome, and the noise. I posted almost a year ago how I took my Steyr 300 win mag out, and started shooting like ass, how I was chasing things, convinced something was wrong. I started dry firing and really focusing on my stock to shoulder, grip, trigger and bipod load. Suddenly I produced this amazing group.
I was trying to shoot my dots like I do with my bolt 308s, and I had moved my zero on my scope assuming the error was somewhere other than me. It wasn't. What Frank said about how the gas guns make it harder, totally completely what I have seen. Shooting the bolt 308s at the dots at 100 yards (what I do for fun) is vastly easier to do than the gas guns. I will say that of my gas guns the LMT MWS always performs the easiest for doing this out of the gas 308/6.5cm I own, but I am still pretty much convinced, this is just some sort of mental thing, not scientific at all. It cost more, therefore it must perform better.
When I was a kid, my dad's friends were all of the same theory, a bolt gun will outperform any semi auto. When I got into the AR land shooting a bushmaster varmintter I was baffled at all these targets with dime sized groups. No bolt I owned at the time did this, what are they talking about? When you sit down with a bipod on a heavy AR15, with a good trigger, it is amazing how much can be removed from the shooter's bad habits.
Just what I have seen. Almost always, when a gun shoots like ass, I go look in a mirror for the problem.
I salute your erudition and ability to communicate and I apologize for my muddled attempt to do the same. I'll go back to lurking now.
Calimwulf,
I understood what you believe is important; and, I appreciate your opinion, although you might want to do back and sort it out, to better understand how the concepts are properly applied,
What I find interesting is that while AR lock-time is slower than bolt gun lock-time, which make folks think they'll do better with a bolt gun, on the other hand, the AR's ergonomics seem to support more consistent recoil resistance. I can be somewhat casual about re-building my position with an AR and still get good results. Such caviler position building with a bolt gun would produce unpredictable results. Now, since follow through is a concept I can manage better than the concept of re-building my position to be identical from shot to shot, I would rather compete using a match conditioned AR than a bolt gun, and, indeed, I do just that. I may re-think this however, since rifles like the Tubb 2000 have ergonomics which support consistent recoil resistance much like the AR's do.
I understood what you believe is important; and, I appreciate your opinion, although you might want to do back and sort it out, to better understand how the concepts are properly applied,
What I find interesting is that while AR lock-time is slower than bolt gun lock-time, which make folks think they'll do better with a bolt gun, on the other hand, the AR's ergonomics seem to support more consistent recoil resistance. I can be somewhat casual about re-building my position with an AR and still get good results. Such caviler position building with a bolt gun would produce unpredictable results. Now, since follow through is a concept I can manage better than the concept of re-building my position to be identical from shot to shot, I would rather compete using a match conditioned AR than a bolt gun, and, indeed, I do just that. I may re-think this however, since rifles like the Tubb 2000 have ergonomics which support consistent recoil resistance much like the AR's do.
Last edited:
I find that I personally shoot bigger groups with my AR's simply because I have a tendency to hurry up to the next shot. It's just natural because I don't have to work the bolt to chamber another round. I might get a dead on bullseye hit, get excited, and hurry up the next shot because I think I'm still right on it. For whatever the reason, I've always had a really strong "follow through" holding the trigger down all the way through the recoil impulse, which as I understand, takes a lot of error out of shooting the gas gun. Therefore, I'm assuming the hurry up factor is the main culpret for my larger groups. To combat this I have loaded 5 different 20 round mags with 1 round so I would have to change the mag after each shot, and that helped. But changing the mags can be a little cumbersome and get you off of your aiming point, plus it defeats the purpose of having 20 or 30 rounds ready to rock.
Because some of us took UNIVERSITY biology, higher math and physics before others learned to rub one out [and we used slip-sticks, slide rules]... and others are just late in the game as to what
really is going on.
BTW, this guy doesn't believe in a God:
And the U.S. Fed.gov thinks they can make Marxism work.
What's your da-da-damn point or input?
Last edited:
I also am late to the game and appreciate the info here. I would still like more information on this subject.
