So you bought a new “less than MOA” rifle

Accuracy is the byproduct of a system. Rifle, load, shooter.

I’m with @taliv - I bite my tongue on the topic on forums like this most of the time, but my experience is the same. I also take a lot of folks out for their first shots with a rifle, and I have shared the same observation. Within minutes of instruction, most people can deliver precision from the bench or prone on the level of what the typical online Fudd would chastise as exaggerated Internet lies, whereas given a factory rifle, they turn out acceptable, but relatively rather ho-hum results.

Equally, as a meagerly skilled shooter, I have observed the disparate performance difference between a factory rifle and a custom rifle. I have often stated here and elsewhere that “I can’t shoot the difference between _______ and _______,” for example, between match primers and standard, or between an LCT and a Forster Co-Ax... BUT... I CAN shoot the difference between most custom rifles and most factory rifles. Give me five factory rifles from Ruger, Remington, Winchester, Savage, Howa, etc and I’ll expect to turn out 1-1.5” groups with factory ammo and 3/4-1moa groups, given a custom rifle, I’ll be disappointed in 3/4” groups, and expect to shoot in the 2’s and 3’s for most groups.

So I can absolutely support, for most people, you really can BUY an appreciable improvement in precision.

As stated above - Rifle, Load, and Shooter. When we shoot from the bench, we’re largely reducing the influence of the shooter. There’s no similar trick to reduce the influence of the load or the rifle - in other words, the shooter can be made to matter less, but the rifle and load ALWAYS matter.

From a novice’s point of view, about five years ago I purchased a Milspec in 308. Viper scope. Loaded up some ammo. I went to f-class to shoot at 300 yards. First week I got a 115. Came in last. : ( I knew the ammo was good because I used a fix stand to test. I kept going. Slowly I got into the 120’s and then the 130’s.

With lots of work travel I was only going once a month at the most. The next year, I was getting into the low 140’s. Last year I was consistent between 145 and 149. Have not been able to get 150 ever. There are those that do weekly. I would like to say it’s practice. With a little dumb luck when it comes to reading the wind. It blows a lot where I shoot. Practice does help. What it did tell me is most people here have forgot more than I know. I learn a lot here.

This comment does not apply to anyone reading this or anyone on this forum!

My experience with most good firearms as more times than not they have the capibility of better performance than the trigger puller!

Many times I see guys at the range blaming the firearm when they might do better to look in the mirror......calm down and check their equipment and get back to fundamentals-

Again- applies to no one here don't hate me please!

My scoped .270 WCF's will shoot handloads off the bench inside of 3/4 MOA.

From field positions, < 2 MOA is good.

For aperture sighted rifles from field positions, < 3 MOA is good.




GR

Like all sports, some people have more natural shooting ability than others. Yes, equipment makes a difference but you also need the skill to take full advantage of it.

Some shooters become high masters and go distinguished in a couple of years, while others never get beyond expert in their lifetime. And their rifles and ammunition aren't much different.

Jerry Miculek comes to mind.

First, let’s get this out the way, if your rifle is getting 1” groups at 100 yards and 3” groups at 300 yards that’s slightly under 1MOA.

Now that we’ve established that....if you come back and tell me the rifle capable of 1MOA or better you bought “isn’t accurate” (let’s not even get started on accuracy vs. precision) I’m going to assume that no, you just can’t utilize it to it’s full potential. The limiting factor of most modern rifles is the person using it.

Click to expand...

I don’t understand, if they are already getting sub MOA groups, does that mean they can’t utilize it to its full potential?

The OP claims the shooter and I claim the rifle/load

Click to expand...

With some of my setups it is most certainly the rifle and load because I am not holding the rifle or pulling the trigger.

In engineering, it’s stacked tolerances. If you have 3 assembled parts with a manufacturing tolerance of .010 each, the cumulative variance could be zero to .030.

It’s ridiculous (stupid actually) to argue shooter versus rifle. Your accuracy is a total sum of all inputs combined.

If you can only hold 6” at a hundred yards, you’ll never shoot better than 6” no matter how good the rifle. If the rifle can only hold 6”, you’ll never shoot better than 6” no matter how well you shoot.

I have seen plenty of rifles that will not shoot MOA groups period. Barrel Harmonics, Action fit to the stock, bore rifling, poor crown etc.

Two observations:
The first matter of consideration is the purpose. As TXcookie mentioned, he is a hunter, and the required accuracy is that of the vital zone of whatever he's hunting. The accuracy standards of taking a buck at fifty to one hundred yards are quite different than winning a 1,000 yard bench rest match. Have a purpose in mind.

Second, test the rifle (or handgun). Make sure it, under controlled conditions, will shoot to the point of aim (or sights, as one prefers). Get the thing sighted in. For a rifle never fired before (just bought or acquired) one should start at twenty-five yards. Then move out further, perhaps gradually. The point is to determine a) it is 'sighted in' for the shooter's eyes and technique to the limits of the arm under controlled conditions. Then shoot it without a rest or brace to see how the shooter does. Shooting offhand, unsupported (or kneeling or sitting) is very different than a bench. The ability of the shooter to control things is a real and greater variable than most any firearm.

It’s not ridiculous at all because most people don’t know where the problem lies....

In engineering you can disassemble your three parts and measure them to find where the problem is. But how are you going to measure what size groups the ammo will shoot without the gun and shooter?

Click to expand...

In that case the problem lies with the shooter because it’s not that difficult to mitigate or eliminate themselves from the equation or separate the parts.

That’s why people use bipods, bags and rests, all the way to quite involved fixtures.



So they see what machine is capable of without human error involved in the outcome.

At some point environmental conditions become an issue though and the humans input can become useful again. Like this video of Mrs Carter, while not having any effect on the rifle as far actually holding it or by pulling the 2oz trigger, she is seen reading the wind and adjusting POA to compensate. Then again you could shoot “sub moa” groups all day and still loose to her. Just shooting under 1MOA and shooting .1-.2 agg are two different things.



If one is shooting 6” groups, all over the place then drops a rifle into a solid rest and it’s consistent, that makes the problem area easy to find.

taliv said:

It’s not ridiculous at all because most people don’t know where the problem lies. They just know the system is putting out 6” groups. We’re talking about where they should start first when trying to improve it.

It’s important because it is very difficult to measure components of the system individually. In engineering you can disassemble your three parts and measure them to find where the problem is. But how are you going to measure what size groups the ammo will shoot without the gun and shooter?

Click to expand...

But we do take the system (shooter, gun, and ammo) apart and measure the individual parts in many cases. Not as simplistic as just measuring individual parts of a mechanism but a good shooter can take the system apart, in a sense, and find the problem. A good bench and proper rests can all but eliminate the shooter from the equation. A known good rifle/ammo at moderate ranges can allow the shooter to focus on his shooting technique ignoring the gun/ammo issues for the moment. A known good rifle can also allow a good shooter to tune a new load for the system. Not simplistic but very doable.

Not as simplistic as just measuring individual parts of a mechanism but a good shoot can take the system apart, in a sense, and find the problem. A good bench and proper rests can all but eliminate the shooter from the equation.

Click to expand...

Yep, if I can do this all day.



But can’t holding the rifle, it’s obvious where the problem is.

Mr. Craig, you agree with me. You are a brilliant man. (Chuckle snurf!)

I recently ran into this issue. I built an AR15 with supposedly a good barrel, good trigger, and other quality parts, and using many types and weights of match ammo and a few handloads I couldn't turn out 100 yard groups better than 2.5". I realized that I haven't really shot rifles much in the last decade, even though 15 or so years ago I shot rifles all the time and knew I was capable of shooting sub MOA back then. So to determine if I was the issue in the equation, I grabbed my Savage MKII .22 and went back to the range. I was consistently getting 1" groups at 50 yards with a few a tad under that, but I forgot how horrid that trigger was! Went home and measured it at 5.75 lbs. So I watched some video's on trigger jobs and was able to get it down to 3.2 lbs and went back to the range. This time I'm reliably shooting 0.3"-0.6" groups at 50 yards with Aguila Super Extra HV (this gun doesn't seem to care for standard velocity rounds). Now I'm pretty sure the original issue is with the AR and not me, but I'm going to go back to the range with it again to verify.

Now this also reminds me of another story 15 years ago. A buddy had bought a nice Remington 700 in .30-06 and asked to come to my parents farm to sight it in. Got on paper at 25 yards and moved back to 100, and suddenly he had maybe 1 hit out of 5 on the target. He started cursing the gun, the guy at the store that had installed the scope, everything. I offered to give it a try and shot a sub 2" group with the UMC ammo he had, which I figured was about as good as that ammo would do. After a few pointers he was able to get some 4"-5" groups, and I told him rather than waste more 30-06 ammo he should borrow his dad's Marlin 60 and spend some quality time with it.