I'll second that. If someone loaded 168's and/or 175's in my rifle without me seeing it I could not tell the difference in the recoil or what projo I had shot.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Should I be satisfied with 1 MOA in my new LMT 18" MWS?
- Thread starter Scooter1942
- Start date
I'll second that. If someone loaded 168's and/or 175's in my rifle without me seeing it I could not tell the difference in the recoil or what projo I had shot.
Sorry Stirling, the position you are arguing from is indefensible. Yes, a 338 being shot from a poor position is going to expose flaws in a shooter's form that a 223 caliber gun may not expose. However, to apply that same logic to two loads being shot on the same rifle with a different factory match loading is absolutely asinine. And I would be shocked if you could honestly tell the difference on a blind shoot of the two, they are very similar loadings with very little difference between the two.
There are plenty of factors to consider which you are simply too quick to dismiss as the OP has already stated he had acceptable groupings from the 168 FGMM. While FGMM represents a loading that does well in a broad variety of applications, it is not necessarily going to be well tolerated on all guns. There are too many variables for every gun to love one specific loading. That particular barrel may just not shoot the heavier bullets well, it happens. It could have been a bad lot of FGMM, which is not entirely out of the realm of possibility.
The OP could have been doing plenty of things behind the rifle to skew the results as well, but that may not necessarily be the case. To jump on that and immediately label it as the 175's showing some inconsistency in his shooting because of the heavier recoil vs the 168s on a gas gun is comical to say the least.
There are plenty of factors to consider which you are simply too quick to dismiss as the OP has already stated he had acceptable groupings from the 168 FGMM. While FGMM represents a loading that does well in a broad variety of applications, it is not necessarily going to be well tolerated on all guns. There are too many variables for every gun to love one specific loading. That particular barrel may just not shoot the heavier bullets well, it happens. It could have been a bad lot of FGMM, which is not entirely out of the realm of possibility.
The OP could have been doing plenty of things behind the rifle to skew the results as well, but that may not necessarily be the case. To jump on that and immediately label it as the 175's showing some inconsistency in his shooting because of the heavier recoil vs the 168s on a gas gun is comical to say the least.
Is the rifle consistent? Yes. We know the rifle is consistent by rounds shot going where desired. Is the ammunition consistent? Yes. After all it's match grade. This leaves us to ask is the shooter consistent? No. Why is the shooter not consistent? He is not controlling the rifle with 175 as he can with 168. End of story. Now why would that be? The only thing different is the recoil from 175 is heavier than 168. So, with all we know which is all we need to know, proper shooter/target analysis tells us the problem is the shooter does not know how to build a consistent position, with the heavier recoiling round revealing the marksmanship issue.
Last edited:
Again, that's a load of BS. You are assuming that it is a good lot of FGMM, which I will give you that it likely is. However, just because the ammo may be consistent and perform in one gun does not necessarily mean that it will be so in another. Just because it is match ammo does not mean that it is the end all be all ammo. Also, I do not believe the OP qualified what their definition of it shot "horrible" actually was. If they did and I missed it, my bad. However, that does not beat the fact that you have made two absolutely ridiculous claims:
-That you yourself could tell the difference between a 168 and 175gr FGMM loading in a gas gun. BS.
-That the 175gr loading is exposing a flaw in the OPs form that the 168s are not, again BS.
-That you yourself could tell the difference between a 168 and 175gr FGMM loading in a gas gun. BS.
-That the 175gr loading is exposing a flaw in the OPs form that the 168s are not, again BS.
Here's what is ridiculous: You have no comprehension of shooter/target analysis yet you think the problem is something other than the obvious. I experience this sort of shooter error almost weekly. It forces me to shoot client rifles to prove to them there is nothing wrong with their rifle or ammunition. Your concluding statements show you have little experience with the concept discussed.
Last edited:
Between two loadings on the same gun? Horseshit! Showing an individual it's them and not their gun because they are making some other BS excuse that their zero shifted or the same ammo is giving them a different result than it usually does, etc; sure. But the same gun on the same day with the same shooter with different ammo? You've changed exactly 1 variable. One. A 175 FGMM loading will not expose a flaw in the shooter's position that a 168 FGMM loading will not expose on the same gas gun.
To the OP. My MWS was also pretty much a one Moa rifle with match ammo and the SS barrel. I'd you want a consistent 1/2 Moa semi .308. I'd say sell the MWS and go for a GAP-10 or JP LRP07. I think you will be happy you did. You lose the quick change barrel, but I never used it anyway. Being in you shoes on the past. This solved it for me
The OP described results with 175 as "horrible". That stark contrast from results with 168 is associated with recoil resistance becoming becoming unpredictable. It produces angular error that increases with distance.You don't know what you do not know and it shows.
Last edited:
Clearly I need to go live in the gun stores so I can go soak up more of that gun shop BS. I'm sure inside of that store I will find people who also still believe the world is flat...
Last edited:
I get better results with 168 rather than 175 out of my 1:10twist LMT by far..... And in terms of 100yard group shooting my 40.5grn varget load blows my 43.2 varget load out of the water. I think there is some truth to what sterling is saying. Ill actually load less powder when shooting at 100yards. And will load more powder when shooting over 300yards.
No, what you clearly need to do is get out on the range and learn a little something about shooter/target analysis. A data book will help you see things as they actually are instead of how you perceive them to be from what appears to be a very limited experience with things important to good shooting.
In an earlier post you said," you've changed exactly one variable". No I did not change anything, the OP changed exactly one thing, going from 168 to 175 and results were, according to the OP, horrible when shooting 175. This leads to wonder about what's different between the two loadings. Most prominent is the recoil from 175 is greater than 168. How does this relate to the shooter's results? The higher recoil cannot be controlled as the shooter can control the lessor recoiling round, while the bullet is in the barrel, or in maintaining a consistent position. You don't see this because you do not shoot at a level which requires you to think about it. High level competitive shooters see it however and that's why they do not shoot the 175 at distances inside 600 yards as it is less forgiving a position which has not been rebuilt exactingly.
Gun stores?
Last edited:
You are coming to understand it because you are recording your shots and conditions which helps you discern trends and build confidence.
Last edited:
I think you're totally correct... trying to get CONSISTENT sub-moa results with a big caliber .308 and larger AR with HUGE re-coil is totally obvious in the shootout threads... put it this way, in 3 total shootout threads spanning well over 2years, with hundreds of rounds down range from many people across the globe, the .308 AR's get absolutely blown out of the water by the 5.56, 6creed, 6.5's, and other AR's with much less recoil at 100yards.... trying to handle the recoil of a .308 / 7.62 AR with CONSISTENT results is VERY VERY HARD! trust me on this and it takes massive skills to keep the recoil of the 7.62 AR under control for CONSISTENT results. It is only after 400 to 600 yards does the 7.62 bullet weight start to out-shine the low re-coil accuracy of the 5.56.. that is why the 6creed, 260, and 6.5 is such a good balance. it really does take shooter skill to control the recoil and extra weight of the BCG in big cal AR's like the 7.62 and above.
Last edited:
Yes, exactly. And, if you work on rebuilding position consistency from shot to shot to Princess and the Pea sensitivity you will see that you are the key to good shooting, since you are most likely the least consistent shooting component. Too many folks are blind about this. They don't get that the in the minuscule time it takes the bullet to travel from the breech to the muzzle, movement of the rifle that is not consistent from shot to shot will produce angular error. They don't know that the recoil that pushed them out of position must be corrected. They don't know that, or much of anything else important to good shooting because it's in conflict with their stubborn off base perceptions for what's important. Unfortunately, since some of these folks do not even know they don't know, the idea of taking a basic marksmanship course never enters their mind. On the other hand, at last years USAMU SAFS, almost 700 folks showed up to get their first dose of marksmanship and now, the disciplined among them are on their way to becoming very good shooters, having knowledge of things like why building a muscular relaxed position is important.
Last edited:
Through out the 80's the M14 and its commercial equivalents ruled Service Rifle competition. Then, in the early 90's the USAMU began a winning streak with match conditioned versions of the M16A2. Today, M14's are rarely seen outside local competitions. Also, younger shooters are getting Distinguished Rifleman status earlier in their shooting journeys, which is attributed to these folks getting an earlier start with an easier gun to handle consistently than the M1A. At any rate, there is no doubt higher scores are being produced with the AR than what were produced with the M14 in Service Rifle competition for many reasons, but, certainly easy on the shoulder is at the top of the list.
OP,
The bottom-line for you is:
1. Build a steady position.
2. Rebuild the position shot to shot instead of firing an entire string from the mag without adjustment between shots. Without rebuilding, you will loose NPA, and thus, with muscle maintaining the position, the resulting unsteadiness will disturb aim.
Last edited:
Maybe the OP isn't consistent from shot to shot. Maybe the rifle/ammo/optic combo doesn't mesh well. Maybe maybe maybe.
Unless we were right there to examine and provide the OP some guidance, then I'd say it's still all internet conjecture and armchair quarterbacking. For anyone to say, "The problem with that guy's shooting is xxxxxxxxxx" without having first hand direct knowledge of it really says a lot.
TO THE OP: Around 1 MOA is pretty consistent with the results you'll see, as others have chimed in with their direct experience. My results mirror yours, and I'd like to think I'm not a 'bad' shooter. As you start to eliminate variables, you'll realize what sorts of things need to be changed. If it were me, I'd invest in training, only because that's the one thing that can be translated across any rifle/optic/ammo combo you come across. Training is definitely the biggest 'bang for the buck' investment when it comes to the shooting sports.
Unless we were right there to examine and provide the OP some guidance, then I'd say it's still all internet conjecture and armchair quarterbacking. For anyone to say, "The problem with that guy's shooting is xxxxxxxxxx" without having first hand direct knowledge of it really says a lot.
TO THE OP: Around 1 MOA is pretty consistent with the results you'll see, as others have chimed in with their direct experience. My results mirror yours, and I'd like to think I'm not a 'bad' shooter. As you start to eliminate variables, you'll realize what sorts of things need to be changed. If it were me, I'd invest in training, only because that's the one thing that can be translated across any rifle/optic/ammo combo you come across. Training is definitely the biggest 'bang for the buck' investment when it comes to the shooting sports.
Your advise is solid. It's why I qualified my first post on this thread with "who knows for sure". Wouldn't it be great if there were indeed someone who could observe the shooter.
Last edited:
I've long advocated for folks to video themselves for coaching. There's a LOT of experience and expertise on this site, so maybe a recommendation is to have folks submit videos, if able, to have the SMEs help evaluate their shooting.
OP, think you'd be able to provide some video of your shooting?
![a>](http://[IMG]<a href="http://s1333.photobucket.com/user/oleary13/media/LMT_zpsf9e0bcde.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1333.photobucket.com/albums/w634/oleary13/LMT_zpsf9e0bcde.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo LMT_zpsf9e0bcde.jpg"/></a>)
This. My LMT is an honest .75-1 minute rifle and prefers 168s. It just keeps humming along and the only real sin is to decopper the bore. It took me a couple hundred rounds before it (or was it me?) broke in. As many have noted shooting the .308 ARs is a different game. Bottom line is it delivers exactly what it promised me, a stable tank of a gun that shrugs off weather, sand, being dropped, bouncing around in the jeep, you name it.
So I am very happy with it, but I don't ask it to be a half minute rifle either, nor do I need to be.
Does a rifle prefer one load over another? It has no capacity for thought. It's design might complement some ammunition over other; however, think about that, what design element would complement a 168 loading over a 175 loading? There may be a few; but, think about the obvious too, your body prefers the lessor recoiling load over a higher recoiling one. It does not need to control the 168 as it would the 175 for a similar result. A great shooter can control either round since he understands a solid position will get a better result with any round. That's to say he does not need to work harder to perfect his position with the higher recoiling round, since he has learned to perfect the position to get results from any round. A not so great shooter, who has a poor position will easily get better results with a less recoiling round because the round serves as a substitute for marksmanship in that it does not require as solid a position to get a good result.
Last edited:
OP,
I just noticed your avator, Governor's Twenty. This would indicate this thread was predicated on a farce. Can you explain?
I just noticed your avator, Governor's Twenty. This would indicate this thread was predicated on a farce. Can you explain?
Last edited:
