Quantcast

MOA FAL

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by Stevie-Ray, Jun 14, 2019.

  1. Stevie-Ray

    Stevie-Ray Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Messages:
    4,388
    Location:
    Mitchi-gun, the Sunrise Side
    Well, I finally got around to seeing if I had ever tested my SAR-48HB at 100 yards. Evidently I hadn't. My first shot was high and to the left, and then I overcompensated on the next. After a final adjustment, I hit the bull, then followed up with 2 more, putting the 3 shot group at under ¾ inch.

    I actually scoped this rifle years ago. A lot has happened over the years, not the least of which was my wife's illness, hospitalization and death. Needless to say, shooting has taken a back seat to a lot of things, and for a time didn't seem important. Later, new guns seemed to take precedence. Even today, I was going to take my AR out, saw the FAL patiently waiting, and on a whim, grabbed it instead.

    Now, I feel vindicated, as I always heard "You'll never see MOA with a FAL, unless it's a custom barrel with reloads, and that's a big MAYBE!" I always argued I thought this was far better than most, and even had several people tell me it was the most accurate FAL they had ever shot.

    This was with NATO surplus, and obviously a bit hotter than what I'm used to, as it was spitting the empties out rather vigorously. Most of the stuff I've shot barely plunks it out down by my right foot. Guess I'll give some attention to the action. Kinda had to look for these.

    Now for a day without wind to see if it's any better. DSCN0501.JPG
     
  2. joseywales76

    joseywales76 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    68
    Try 155smk handload in it.
     
  3. FL-NC

    FL-NC Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2016
    Messages:
    4,507
    Location:
    Fl panhandle
    The FAL has an adjustable regulator that will control the amount of gas going to the tappet. This will affect the ejection of your brass. When you change ammo types, you adjust the regulator.
     
    Gordon and czhen like this.
  4. Stevie-Ray

    Stevie-Ray Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Messages:
    4,388
    Location:
    Mitchi-gun, the Sunrise Side
    I know all that. I've always used NATO surplus, and thus haven't had to adjust the action past the original outing way back in the 80s. I said I was going to have to adjust the action. You expect NATO ammo to be NATO ammo.
     
  5. MistWolf

    MistWolf Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2005
    Messages:
    3,004
    The standard on FalFiles is worst of two consecutive five shot groups fed from the magazine. No single loading. No single-shots fed into the chamber. No single-shots fed from the mag. You gotta put 5 rounds in the magazine, and fire the rounds in normal sequence by letting the rifle operate in its conventional self-loading manner. Fire as many groups as you want, but the groups chosen must be consecutive.
     
    <*(((>< likes this.
  6. briansmithwins

    briansmithwins Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,183
    Sub MOA 3 round group?

    To really talk group size start by shooting a 10 round group and preferably multiple 10 round groups.

    BSW
     
    <*(((>< likes this.
  7. Stevie-Ray

    Stevie-Ray Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Messages:
    4,388
    Location:
    Mitchi-gun, the Sunrise Side
    This WAS 5 rounds in the magazine, and the entire group measures only 1 7/8" with 2 scope adjustments. The final 3 were the intended group, as I was satisfied with the scope. I'm surprised nobody has yet said, "When you shoot an entire box into an inch, it'll be pretty accurate." This is a stock gun shooting NATO surplus. I'll gladly take it. And if I want to waste that much ammo, shooting multiple 10 round groups, I'll start with the battle-rifle challenge. After I win the lottery.o_O Nobody I know shoots 5 shot groups anymore, and certainly not 10, unless they're using a precision rifle, something a FAL is decidedly not.
     
  8. Hookeye

    Hookeye Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,708
    Pops had an Argentine. Was at the 200. Said wanna try? Shot ten rounds off elbows.....wooden bench ate on me pretty good. Iron sights. Went down and i had a group high and right a bit. Could cover w palm of hand. Not great but not bad. Bag and scope bet itd be close to MOA.

    Think he said his DSA lightweight not as good.
     
    Stevie-Ray likes this.
  9. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    16,274
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    It's pretty universally accepted that accuracy claims aren't legitimate unless they are the average of multiple groups of at least 5 shots. 3 shot groups are for sighting in.

    Getting lucky is just that. I have a G3 that once printed a one-hole cloverleaf @ 100 with crappy South African surplus. Does that make it a sub-MOA rifle, even though the norm for it is about 2"?
     
  10. Hookeye

    Hookeye Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,708
    I don't remember what ammo he had. Maybe i should take his unfired Belgian for a spin LOL.
     
  11. Casefull

    Casefull Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,354
    Location:
    Sawtooths
    You guys that always insist on five or 10 round groups being necessary are hilarious.
     
    Stevie-Ray likes this.
  12. silicosys4

    silicosys4 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    2,602
    3 shot groups are at best next to worthless, at worse completely misleading as a true indication of accuracy.

    Here's part of the explanation as to why, I recommend reading the rest at the link.

    I ignore 3 shot group accuracy claims. Anyone can shoot a bunch of 3 shot groups, pick the best one, and claim that accuracy out of their rifle, but 3 shot groups are a matter of random chance more than they are a statement of accuracy.

    "If you pick 3 shots at random from that distribution you could end up with three holes practically touching. They might be near the center of impact, or they might be far away. Conversely, you could end up with three shots quite far from each other. Three shots don’t tell you very much: Half the time their extreme spread is wider than the CEP.

    More importantly, especially for sighting in, on average the 3-shot center is 60% of the CEP away from the true center! It’s theoretically impossible to be certain you’ve found the exact center of impact, but you can see that three shots aren’t a very good indication. In fact, to double the precision of your zero you have to take 10 shots! (At that point we expect the sample center to be within 30% CEP of the true center.)

    So what’s a shooter to do? For one thing: ignore 3-shot groups. If you want to get a sense of a gun’s precision then shoot larger groups. I tend to shoot 10-round groups and use computerized target markers to precisely calculate my CEP. For the most accurate guns at closer distances that tend to create jagged holes I instead shoot several 5-round groups.

    If you’re not going to bother calculating CEP and just want to stick with Extreme Spread because it’s so easy to measure at least move up to 5-round groups. They are statistically more efficient and less prone to abuse than 3-round groups. Use multiple groups, and don’t throw away the bad ones. For example, the American Rifleman’s protocol of taking the average extreme spread of five 5-round groups is only about a third less efficient than the most statistically efficient precision estimator."

    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/understanding-rifle-precision/amp/
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2019
  13. czhen

    czhen Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    754
    Nice shooting with a great rifle. As battle rifle achieved its title many times around the globe, far to be a target rifle.
    Try with STG 58 AUSTRIAN surplus hard to get but extremely consistent.
    Pics of a SAR-48HB would be appreciate.
     
    Stevie-Ray likes this.
  14. IndianaBoy

    IndianaBoy Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,460

    3 shots is statistically insignificant.

    This isn't conjecture. It is statistical math.
     
    shoobe01 and briansmithwins like this.
  15. M1key

    M1key Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,728
    Location:
    SW
    One good shot at a time is what you need. Minute-of-Jihadi

    M
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2019
    Stevie-Ray likes this.
  16. Hookeye

    Hookeye Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,708
    One's avg 3 shot group could be dang close to their avg 5 shot group.
    I have seen guns do 4 good and throw the 5th.

    But usually if there's one shot that will stray, it's often seen in the first 3.
    But then, most of my stuff has been handloaded, and free floated varmint type stuff.
    Variables minimized.

    I also have my impacts hit other than where my aiming point is, to not corrupt sight picture.

    Don't really give a flip about statistical significance.

    On a hunting gun, it might get a couple shots and plenty of time to cool before the next.
    If a guy shoots 3 shot groups, so be it.

    But what I want to know is how his 5 consecutive three shot groups are.

    Anybody can get a lucky 3 or even 5 shot group.
    A single group doesn't say anything.

    I want repeatably good. Not a once in a while good.
     
  17. Hookeye

    Hookeye Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,708
    If one has a rifle that is prone to heat up, maybe 3 shot group is good enough.
    Let it cool and shoot 3 more.
    Let it cool and shoot 3 more.

    If it does .5 for each of the 3 shot groups.................call it a .5 rifle.

    I don't care if one shoots five shots into .5 one group, 1" the next and .75 the next.
    Just because it did 5 into .5 once...........that doesn't mean squat to me.

    Unless the 4th or 5th shots are the ones that open every group.
    A trend recognized.
    Need to figure out why, fix that, and put all 5 into .5 ;)
     
    Bfh_auto likes this.
  18. Hookeye

    Hookeye Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,708
    I've been shooting 5 shot groups for decades.
    Even as a kid I saw guys cherry pick "groups" at the range (SMDH).
    Internet has proly just made it more silly.

    IMHO the group is the group and is what's repeatable.
    It is also inclusive of shooter errors.

    Not wrong to call out a screwup.
    But still gotta include it in the group.

    Or shoot another group, without screwing up ;)
     
  19. MikeInOr

    MikeInOr Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2016
    Messages:
    756
    Location:
    Oregon
    I used to shoot 3 shot groups but kind of got lazy over the years. I now just shoot 1 shot groups... it is amazing how much my marksmanship has improved over the years!
     
    shoobe01 and earlthegoat2 like this.
  20. Hookeye

    Hookeye Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,708
    Am on another forum where guys running cheap guns and ammo are making repeated claims of sub .5 groups at 50 yards.....22 rf. Not that their rig did it once....but does it all the time. Have "heard" this elsewhere too.

    Finally a few posted pics.

    Not surprising ....the claims if .5 or less.......sure look like .75 or bigger. Not sure how they arrive at their measurement.

    5 shot and 10 shot groups though LOL.

    From my limited exp.....some inexpensive combos can shoot well. But less than match ammo tends to make repeatability a problem.

    It tends to cost money to shoot decent. If it didnt.....we wouldnt spend the freakin money and time to get it.
     
  21. Hookeye

    Hookeye Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,708
    Used to get OK results w old WW Super X. Even bought by the case. Cost me a target once in a while.....ammo variance. Dunno what changed but the stuff today doesnt seem to be as good.

    Pops has switched to Fiocchi as his reg.

    I have seen an improvement in reg centerfire ammo though. Seems to shoot better on avg.....even though the brass not as good (reloading).

    Oh well, cant have it all. At least I can't. Amazing how so many other blind pigs are finding acorns.

    Rain stopped. Might hit range.
     
  22. shoobe01

    shoobe01 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    775
    Location:
    Kansas City
    I'll add my story:
    I once got a 3 shot cloverleaf group during sighting, at 300 yds, from a 16" 5.56 firing milsurp 62gr. I promise it is not a 1/4 moa rifle.


    And my vote:
    Statistics doesn't care if you like it or not. It is just the truth of the universe. Accuracy of systems is defined by statistical probability. Go google CEP. The circular error probability means that even a "1 moa gun" is actually only going to do that at some probability we define by our testing. We'd like it to be R99 (99% of all shots inside that circle) but that's not really a thing. Very good systems are normally recorded to R95 values. Your location from the phone GPS is to an R85 usually.

    The R value decreases as you get smaller sample sizes.

    There is no such thing as an R100 circle, because this is all probabilistic.

    Around 8 shots is what you need to begin to get up to R80 (IIRC), but more is always better for samples of randomized data like this, and 10 is nice even number. When I bother to determine exactly how accurate a rifle is, I take the typical-worst group of many. I may remember that it "can, on a good day, shoot into 1/4 moa" but know, say, and plan for it being a reliably .75 moa gun.


    Plan for is key. If you convince yourself that you have a more accurate gun than you do, you will be disappointed on match day or may take improper shots when hunting, that you can't make with that system. Be honest about your performance.
     
    Bfh_auto and Ironicaintit like this.
  23. Hookeye

    Hookeye Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,708
    I'm not interested in testing for max variability in a rifle.
    Am not going to shoot 10 shots one after the other in the deer or groundhog fields.

    Maybe a gun heats up and strings after 3 shots.
    If that pattern is observed, I'm good with limiting it to 3 shot groups.

    Or doing 5 shot groups with cool downs between firings.

    Test it how you'll run it.

    But one must shoot several groups to establish a trend.

    Most folks don't shoot enough to do that, or change stuff between tests to where other variables added.

    Like it when they buy a cheap .22 rifle/scope and throw some promo ammo in it, off the side of the truck zero and call it a half incher at 50 yards.

    Yeah, whatever.
     
  24. Hookeye

    Hookeye Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,708
    I do like shooting my 10/22s in testing, as I can shoot two 5 shot groups without getting off the rifle.
    Bench form stays the same for two groups.
    Plop down behind the rifle and shoot, not fast, not too slow either.
    Guys at other benches just rip em, or get up and off the gun, readjust it on the bag/bipod.
    Camped out behind mine, relax.........almost zen like.........even after a Mountain Dew Quickstart.
    Guys laugh. I got all day man...........never try to cram all my shooting into a short period of time. Range day is range DAY.
    Have always shot that way, and I think it helps in minimizing variability.....the lack of stress.
     
  25. Hookeye

    Hookeye Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,708
    Dunno if I test it right or wrong, but have done it the same way for decades, with good repeatable results.
    Yeah I know statistics, worked in engineering/adv development for a major corp.
    Did the Six Sigma and other.
    There are tools, maybe even good ones. Doesn't mean that each is perfect or the right one for a job.
    Have seen what they said would happen, not.........too many times.
    Amazing how the real world results have to be backfed into the models.......again and again.
    Good times LOL.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice