My observations of shooting vs the all too easy MOA.

The rifle shoots what it shoots, regardless of the position.

Click to expand...

Picking the most minor of nits: the rifle's zero changes for different positions if you're shooting with a sling (and why in the world shoot without one?)

Here's the same CZ 453 as above, shot from the bench instead of prone and slung. I've never shot it from the bench, but a fellow at the next lane wanted to try it:



See how the shots are going high? The rifle was zeroed for slung & prone. Without the sling pulling on the forearm, the shots were way up there. This was at 50 yards.

I've lost the little card I made with this rifle's zeros on it. Tsk... gotta make another. And rubber-band it to the stock or something, next time. The rifle has a different zero for prone, for sitting, for kneeling (although if I recall, sitting & kneeling were awfully close to the same), and for offhand. I would expect offhand and benched to be the same, since the sling plays no part in either.

You're welcome. It's not my idea. Everything I know about shooting, I learned from someone much smarter than me. The idea about keeping a card with zeros and sticking it on the rifle somewhere is from a championship shooter, a marine who wrote a little book. I wish I could recall his name, or find the little book. I've got it around here somewhere. Anyhow, you've asked a great question. Thanks.

(Edited to Add): Found the little book: Leather Sling and Shooting Positions by M/SGT James R. Owens USMC (Ret.).

I shot National Match Course competition for many years, 200, 300, 500 or 600 yards also shot 1000 yard competition, having started with a surplus Garand.

On that moa rifle, the thing translated to a 6" group at 600 yards, which was shot with "iron sights" using a sling, prone psition.

One rifle I had, it was an older post 1964 308 Model Winchester Standard Target Rifle, with handloads would easily shoot moa at 100 yards, with iron sights (Redfield Receiver Rear, globe front sight shooting off a bench).

At 600 yards, 12" diameter 10 ring (2 moa) I could consistently hold 10 ring elevation, usually loosing a few 9's to windage. To the bench rest shooter a 2 moa rifle would likely be relegated to use as a boat anchor, so be it, however I wonder as to how these bench resters would do at 600 yards, shooting prone, with a sling and their elbows in the grass or on their shooting mat, if they used one.

The Army lost that art in using the sling when firing a weapon as soldiers should. I have never in my 20 years received instruction in the use of a sling with a weapon/rifle until I started getting around the shooting circles after I retired.

Click to expand...

I don't know about "should" using a sling for combat. It ties up your weak hand that you may need for other duties and reduces the versatility of your shooting position, limiting your physical movement. The art was "lost" because it didn't work for combat. It useful like rested easy MOA shooting is useful in combat.

Unless you're in a benchrest match, sighting in a scope, or working up a handload, shooting from a bench is a waste of ammo and time for improving shooting skills.

Seems to me accuracy or the lack of is relative to what your wanting or needing to do. If paper, MOA off a bench would be important, or if shooting F class then your object or skills and your needs are or can be different than the deer or game hunter, not that the two cannot intertwine either.

Bottom line is, If you can hit what you are shooting at, hit where you want/need to, when you want/need to, your accurate enough for whatever type of shooting it is your doing, if you can't you nee practice, and the other doesn't matter at the moment.

Seen guys that could hit paper great and miss a easy shot at a deer, I think a lot of deer are killed by guys that to a lot of you couldn't shoot very well. Being proficient at what your needs are is what really counts.

For some reason I have ben thinking about this lately, but I don't ever want to be a perfect shooter who can put every single shot in the exact same place every single time. That to me would be the most boring thing in the world.

I would rather be an average to above average shooter who can take a target home once in a while and say "Man, look at that group, that's pretty damn good." as opposed to "Yawn, shot all my groups perfect today, gonna do it again next time."

That to me would take every single joy that I get out of shooting and make something great and enjoyable, mundane and routine.

At 600 yards, 12" diameter 10 ring (2 moa) I could consistently hold 10 ring elevation, usually loosing a few 9's to windage. To the bench rest shooter a 2 moa rifle would likely be relegated to use as a boat anchor, so be it, however I wonder as to how these bench resters would do at 600 yards, shooting prone, with a sling and their elbows in the grass or on their shooting mat, if they used one.

Click to expand...

Having a good MOA or less rifle allows you to concentrate on your own errors, of which wind doping is the most common. Of course excellent quality ammunition is crucial. Random variations in powder charge can take you out of the ten and make it difficult to get a proper elevation setting at long range. That's why I trickle and weigh all of my powder charges for rifle.

I'll repeat that I am still amazed that this topic garners so much debate. It seems that everyone has a definition for what "MOA" shooting is and what it is not.

Guntech wrote"

If you rifle shoots MOA, discounting flyers, it's not an MOA rifle.

My definition of an MOA rifle is one that will shoot 10 rounds into 1.041 inches at 100 yards 10 times in a row.

I have been to the range and seen so called 'sub moa' rifles where 3 rounds are within an inch - an a bunch weren't. That's just luck, not precision (which if different than accuracy)

Click to expand...

Respectfully Todd, I think your definition is wrong in a pure sense of a rifle shooting "MOA." I think your definition would require a different term instead of co-opting the term MOA rifle. You've added variables that are not inherent in the implied definition.

In its purist terms, there would be no assumption of number of shots to a rife's capability. Why 10 shots? Why not 15? or why not 7? Oh, there is a relevancy to that in terms of the rifle's application, but it is not in terms of the a rifle's initial capabilities.


Consider this.

The scientific method seeks to isolate variables. This is an effort to test variables independantly of one another and gain knowledge of the affects of each of those variables. When applying a criteria of additional shots, you are allowing uncontrolled variables such as temperature to enter the equation.

Part of the criteria of success in the scientific method is only that the "experiment" can be replicated. It doesn't say that the experiement has to be replicated a certain number of times in quick succession.

In its purest form, the measurement of the rifle would be that the initial shot could be replicated with the same variables present or controlled. That would mean two shots.

Sure, this sits dangerously close to the realm of theoretics rather than practical application. But does it really? Or is the 10 shot requirement sit deeper in the realm of theoritics for the average person?

I'll explain.


For the moment, lets look at a rifle that has shot two consecutive shots sub MOA from a vice-- meaning we have isolated and eliminated the "human error" variable from the equation. For this same rifle, let's also say that it has shown that over a succession of shots, it has demonstrated a widening of groups as the barrel begins to heat.

Now...

I can be reasonably certain that should I have to grab that rifle and shoot, it will hit where my sights are telling me it will. Whether *I* can shoot well enough to capitalize on that ability is a different matter. But I would know that the rifle would do its part.

By the same token, lets say we have a rifle that has shown a wide variance between the first shot and a subsequent shot-- also fired from a vice. Because of this variance, one would not be able to determine within that variance where a shot would strike. Obviously, the level of certainty as to where a shot would strike would be diminished as well should a person have to grab that rifle and take a shot.


I am approaching this as a hunter, not a competition shooter. I take up issue with the shot requirement because of that approach. Most hunters I know do not take 10 shots in an entire season of hunting, but EVERY hunter I know has benefited from an accurate rifle. My shots in the last several years have been cleaner than my father's. I've spent far less time tracking deer than he has. It should not suprise anyone that my rifles have typically be far more accurate than the one that my father uses. So obviously, it matters in practical application.

There can be no denying the value of a rifle that will hit upon shooting in practical application exactly where you are aiming with one shot. I fear that applying more and more criteria to the puzzle masks the value of a large number of rifles that are highly accurate, but may suffer from the affects of mounting variables.

Most thin-barreled light-weight hunting rifles would fall into this category.


As I see it, by placing shot number requirements on a rifle's "capabilities," a segment of practical shooting is left without description. I'd prefer to see new terms that more accurately describe shooting of multiple shots. MOA is just too generic of a term to be coopted into that. After all, it is the subsequent shot requirement that is adding additional uncontrolled variables to the equation.


At any rate, it seems that we need more descriptive terms for what we are looking at.


-- John

Honestly I can't blame the guys. I come on the internet and read about a $150 surplus sks shooting 2 moa with wolf. Why would I settle for less than 1moa from anything else.

Click to expand...

I have actually shot a 5 round string at 100 yards that measured 1-15/16" with Wolf out of a $200 SKS.

One time.

Surprised the heck out of me, as 3-1/2" to 4" off the bench is normal.

I still have that target.

Two of the bigger inhibitors of MOA shooting:

COFFEE

CIGARETTES

obviously neither related to the gun/ammo combination.

Two of the bigger inhibitors of MOA shooting:

COFFEE

CIGARETTES

obviously neither related to the gun/ammo combination.

Click to expand...

Would cannabis help?

Caffeine definitely has a detrimental effect on my shooting. I made the mistake of drinking a 20oz Coke prior to a morning at the range. Things just weren't right.

langenc said:

Two of the bigger inhibitors of MOA shooting:
COFFEE
CIGARETTES

Click to expand...

You mean that I can't just cinch myself tighter into my sling?

Drat.

Great Post, John! That's the kind of discussion that really moves things.
-terry

Deanimator wrote:


Having a good MOA or less rifle allows you to concentrate on your own errors, of which wind doping is the most common. Of course excellent quality ammunition is crucial. Random variations in powder charge can take you out of the ten and make it difficult to get a proper elevation setting at long range. That's why I trickle and weigh all of my powder charges for rifle.

---------------------

Except at short ranges, wind is ALWAYS a factor, the longer the range, the bigger a factor.

As to powder charge variation two things.

Once upon a time, I got hold of a 264 round can of FA 1965 or 1966 30-06 Match Ammunition. I used it for 600 yard shooting in a Model 70 Target Rifle. At the time, I was hand weighing charges of Du Pont 4895 loading 180 Grain Sierra Match King bullets. The Arsenal Match Ammunition shot at least as well as my individually weighed charge hand loads. I doubt that they were weighing charges at FA. I believe that FA loaded using non-canister grades of 4895, but I’m not certain.

Also, the NRA supposedly ran some long range tests at one time, shooting with match grade rifles in a 600 yard tunnel (zero windage). It took a one grain variation in charge weight before any significant changes in group size or location was observed. I would think that any reasonably attentive hand loader, could hold well within one grain variation in charge weight with commonly available powder measures, I used a Belding and Mull for years, and was able to so do. I still have an old RCBS trickler around somelace.

One last thought. Ball or sp[herical powder meters a whole lot more uniformly than did the old stick or extruded powders, which the DuPont IMR line exampled.

One last thought. Ball or sp[herical powder meters a whole lot more uniformly than did the old stick or extruded powders, which the DuPont IMR line exampled.

Click to expand...

Exactly. And I have ONE load for the .30-06, a 200gr. Sierra Matchking over IMR4350. Ball powders don't do what I need done in that caliber.

Seeing as 99% of my hunting will be done from a bench I will shoot from the bench. I may hunt Deer for one or two weekends out of a year but I will try to go varmint hunting as much as I can. Ground hogs are not much on the walking hunts. We set up a bench and wait for them to poke their heads out and vaporize them with out non MOA shooting rifles.

Adding to what cpttango30 said, a lot of folks think that deer hunters don't "bench." There's a lot of different ways to hunt.

When I hunting in MOST of our deer stands, there is a rest all the way around the stand. MOST deer hunters around here are set up similarly. When you fire, you are able to "bench" the rifle by propping your forearm on the rail. I should point out that I also have wall, windows, a door, and propane heater in those. These are my "comfort" stands. However, comfort seems to be the trend lately since most hunters have these around here as well.

When I hunt on my portable trail stands, I have to have a rifle that I can easily shoot free-hand-- since I don't have guard rails around those.


-- John

I shoot both ways as well, on the bench to get an idea what the rifle will do, off hand to get an idea what I can do with the rifle. I like to spend most time shooting off hand or with an improvised rest or rested position, i.e. sitting. Since accuracy for me only really "matters" when I'm hunting and when hunting those are the positions I'm most likely to employ.

On another note, I just don't get the entire deal about hunting from a stand. To me that's more "waiting" than hunting. I suspect it's a regional thing. I don't know anybody that hunts from a stand around here. Is hunting from a stand done because it's the only legal way to do it or the only practical?

Deanimator Quote:
One last thought. Ball or sp[herical powder meters a whole lot more uniformly than did the old stick or extruded powders, which the DuPont IMR line exampled.

Exactly. And I have ONE load for the .30-06, a 200gr. Sierra Matchking over IMR4350. Ball powders don't do what I need done in that caliber.

--------------------

Which ball powder were you using in the above mentioned load, and what was it that you needed done. Are you talking about hunting ammunition or long range target loads. In 30-06 bolt guns, I used 4895 and 4350, in the Garand 4895 only.

The only ball powder I have any experience with, re rifle ammunition loading is WC 846, a surplus powder, I used in 308 caliber, bolt guns. I also used 4895 and a bit of 3031. The above mentioned worked quite well.