sub moa rifles....riiiiight

[theCZ]

I'm kind of miffed, I didn't think MOA was that tough to get if you had a rifle capable. All of my scoped bolt actions make the MOA requirement, at least at 100 yards. I bought a .223 CZ a few months ago and my first ten load recipes gave me 1.5" 5 shot 100yd groups, and then I found the load my rifle likes and shot this group:

Am I going to say that my rifle is a 1.5MOA shooter because the first ten groups I shot while looking for a good load had terrible accuracy? No way! I'm not either going to say mine is a .27 MOA shooter (measured center to center), because that group isn't representative of the groups I've fired since then with that load. I'd have to be honest and say that it's a .75 to .85 MOA rifle, and if the wind's blowing, I keep that one at home and take my 6mm Rem. after coyotes.

And my heavy barreled varmint rifle can certainly shoot great groups, but my overall average group size is about twice the size of this one (out to 300 yards I've had many targets at around .6MOA):

I've gotten a 4.5" 500 yard group with this rifle, but it was on a very calm day and I was curious to find the drop on my 50grain Blitzkings.

You'll never find me bragging at the range about these rifles though.
I've never shot factory ammo through either of these guns, and take the time to develop pet loads for everything I shoot. I have very good front and back rests also, that makes a big difference. I've talked to guys at the range claiming to have shot an 800yd dime size group that also took a sniper course in the Marines, and plenty of other guys using a rolled up sleeping bag as a rest that were happy to get a 3" 3 shot group. If you enjoy reloading and accurate rifles, it won't take long to make you a sub-moa shooter!

 

[dakotasin]

i shoot a lot, and i have a couple of guns. i've got it covered from 25 yard big-hole-maker to 1000 yard prairie dog whacker...

most of my (newer) rifles are moa or better - but, it takes a little gunsmithing, good handloads, and good trigger discipline...

when so many posts on these boards are to the tune of 'hey, lookie here! i made it to the range today... first time in 8 months i've fired a gun' - why is it a shocker so few people can actually shoot sub-moa? when all someone has done is gone shooting, and they feel compelled to write a report about it, yeah, not much of a shooter. so, imagine the epiphany a shooter gets when he drives a dedicated bench gun and comes up at 1+" at 100 yards, but when the practiced shooter gets ahold of the same weapon, he knocks out a .2" group...

i'd venture to guess that the average remington 700, savage 110, tikka t-3, browning a-bolt, etc etc etc is indeed capable of day-in, day-out sub-moa shots at 100 yards if the shooter driving said weapon actually practiced his craft once in a blue moon...

anyway, yeah, i think most rifles are moa capable. i think the person driving the rifle is the weak link.

 

[itgoesboom]

Taliv,

Sure, target rifles can hold .5MOA for more shots, but 3-shots can still be .5MOA. It is just an angle of measurement.

The reality is that hunting rifles, with thin barrels, won't hold the same accuracy for as many rounds as a heavy barreled target rifle.

So what?

Barrels heat up and POI shifts, not to mention mirage (I was shooting in 28f weather, and after 3 shots the target got a very blurry) can shift the POI as well.

It isn't necessarily luck when someone shoots a quality 3-shot group. My rifle consistantly shoots 3-shot groups under and inch, and many under .5 inch. I promise you, that isn't luck.

That is a quality rifle, with a solid stock, with the action bedded, with very carefully handloaded ammo held to tight tolerances, set up on very stable rest, with a shooter trying his hardest to shoot to the best of his ability.

A target rifle? Not quite, although I have outshot many people at my range who bring a high dollar target rifle to the range.

It just happens to be a very accurate hunting rifle. It is what it is.

 

[taliv]

So what?

exactly. reread my post; i think we're saying mostly the same thing. at least, i already addressed those points.

anyway, yeah, i think most rifles are moa capable. i think the person driving the rifle is the weak link.

dakotasin, yep, but i'd add that it's the combination of rifle and ammo. and most shooters don't shoot enough to find that combination.

 

[kir_kenix]

wow, this got about 5 times the amount of responses as i thought.

i tend to agree that MOST modern rifles are capable of or around 1 moa with decent ammo without human error. what gets me, and why i started this post is that some people just seem to throw out the smallest group they have ever shot and attatch it as "this is a .42 moa rifle!"

it is a fact that most shooters don't handload, and that they just pick up whatever ammo is cheapest at wal-mart. now, almost certainly this load will not produce moa groups at 100 yards consistantly....but it may happen once or twice a range session with three shot groups....maybe.

i think part of the problem is that we dont have a real good definition of moa. there is no real guidlines to meet, such as single group size, average size, etc. i don't think there is anything wrong with 3 shot groups, but i think it takes a few more <1" 3 shot groups to equal 1 5 shot moa group.

i have been keeping a running log book on several of my more accurate rifles, and i was honestly suprised that my remington 700 .223 averages about 1.6" groups. i would have honestly told anyone that i could consistantly shoot 1" groups out of this rifle 3 months ago, but now i see that this is not the case. sure i have plenty of 1" or slightly below groups (and a handful of really lucky groups) in my binder, but not with the frequently that i would have previously proposed.

i think what i have been trying to get at, is that we put too much emphasis on the occasional, or semi-frequent moa patterns and forget the 3 groups we just fired. i know there are alot of really good shooters, many times better then me for sure, but i think that many are guilty of the same thinking that i once was.

and as for gun writers...i think they either really cherry pick their groups or just flat out lie. it seems that they AVERAGE <moa with EVERY type of ammo they fire. i do not have a single rifle that shoots that well with several types of ammo in 4-5 different bullet wts/profiles.

anyway, i wasnt trying to offend anybody or call anybody a liar, but from what i have seen and experienced their must only be a very small percentage of shooters that average under 1" all the time.

 

[4fingermick]

The factory meant the rifle was sub moa, they didn't include any specs on the shooter!

 

[rangerruck]

I refuse to keep any that wont.
here is my
cz 527 carbine
marlin 17m2
nef 17m2
marlin mod 60 , in that order; all at 100yds.














and this is just some of my rifles, including a cz in 762.39, supposely impossible, and a mosin 38, yeat that's right, a mosin 38.

It is my belief, that every rifle, can be cleaned, trigger tuned, bbl channelled out, pressure pad added up front, action screws correctly torqued, in other words, tweaks of all possible kinds to any rifle, to make it shoot very well.
the first thing you must do is, find out, before any tweaks at all, which ammo it likes best, so you must buy all possible makes and samples. then when you find the one it groups best, even if it is a 2 or 3 inch group, then let the tweaking begin. I just got a kids youth rossi, in 17hmr, to shoot one ragged holes, at 50 yards. Thats right , a 100 dollar kids model, cheapy ol Rossi!! and you know what? the torque it liked best on it's action screw was not only nothing at all, but actually hanging a half turn loose! thats right, that means the bbl was lying untightened in its channel, but with just my little added pressure pad up front!!! now that is sick!!!

notice on the cz carbine, it even shot wolf sub moa!!! So Kule! I still hate that ammo , though.

 

[Dr.Rob]

I think most bolt action rifles made since the Winchester change-over in '64 are capable of sub-moa groups. It was part of everyone's marketing ploy to make more accurate rifles.

As for sniper wanna-be's NOBODY in the commercial industry used the term "MOA" in any frquency in the 80's and before, it's rather a recent change in terminology and technology. (IE Mil-dot scopes)

I have a rifle capable of under .5 inch groups off the bench WHEN I PRACTICE. It's amazing how those open up if I've been away from the range for a for a while.

Trigger/scope/ammo all make a difference. As do breath control, where and how you hold hot barrel vs. cold barrel etc.

As for 3 shot vs. 5 shot groups? Well I'm not doing much sustained or supressive fire with my hunting rifles, as I suspect most folks aren't. If you've got 3 shots touching, unload set it aside, let it cool off. In a few minutes do the same over again. Some guys take multiple varmint rifles to the field for the same reason, shoot one let another cool off.

Now if we were talking a rifle (AR/M1A/M1) I'd use for DCM/CMP style match or Military-style semi-auto rifle for 3 gun (AK, FAL, HK 91, etc etc)... I've met darn few people who can shoot a 5 shot under 1 inch group at 100 yards with iron sights. However, even I've shot a 3inch or under group with such a rifle. With a lot of practice I don't doubt that a mil-spec M-16 series rifle is capable of 4-5 MOA for several magazines, but no degree of skill beats physics as that barrel heats up. (And I'm talking about burning through magazines, shooting as fast and accurately as possible, not just burning up ammo.)


It takes practice, it's not rocket science for most rifles with a scope, but you have to be up to the task.

On a side note: The Mini 14 is a rifle NOTORIOUS for vertical stringing after a handful of shots. If you can claim to 'compensate' for all the variables that create this, and hold it to under 3moa for 20 rds I suggest you call up Ruger and offer to show them how it's done. It would have saved them re-engineering a rifle.

I expect NO rifle shooting Wolf CENTERFIRE ammo to be capable of stellar accuracy. Until Wolf proves me wrong, I'm holding to this. Wolf might be great for zapping a watermelon at range, but it's not 'precision' loaded.

 

[Dr.Rob]

Figures as soon as post it someone posts evidence contrary... Ranger is that Wolf Classic, Gold or Military or?

 

[rangerruck]

that is regular ol 62 grain steel cased, lacquered wolf. but like I said, I wont run it through any of my weapons again, 'cept maybe my Saiga. otherwise, it is just too hard on everything, and I don't like leaving a lacquer trail down my bbls!!!
Those shots were cooled though, 1 minute between shots.

 

[Essex County]

True 1" rifles used to be rare breed in sported weight rifles. Today it's a lot easier. Good bullets and good barrels are a couple of reasons why. When You sit down at your bench, such factors as wind, temprature and coffee intake as well as bench tequnique make such a diffrence. Yep, it still requires things to all be right, But it a lot easier..........Essex

 

[Gewehr98]

I think somebody's not seeing the forest for the trees.

I don't know if the OP is simply jealous, inexperienced, or unaware. Sub-MOA rifles are indeed out there, and can be purchased off-the-shelf. That's a fairly recent development in the firearms world, which was previously the domain of the custom gun builders and the benchrest crowd. Whether the shooter is capable of getting the advertised accuracy out of the gun is open to debate, but the tools are most definitely up to the task. I have several sub-MOA guns, and some even have guarantees of said accuracy straight from the manufacturer. I didn't pay WalMart prices for it, but this is my Remington 40X in .308:



I have very few problems shooting 1/2" groups, at 200 yards, with this rifle.

I also have a somewhat famous wildcat Krieger-barreled 6.5-06 that demonstrates accuracy equal to, or better than, the 40X above. Same goes for my vintage B.E. Cottrell custom in .236 Super. My factory 700PSS is no slouch in the accuracy department, either, easily sub-MOA with store-bought ammo. I'd be more than happy to invite the OP to my range and let him experience what a consistent sub-MOA rifle can do, my treat.

 

[Afy]

True off the shelf sub MoA guns are indeed available.

Stuff like the SHR 970, Sako Trg 42, Tikka T3, PSG 90, PSG 10, Tiger (Hand loads), the AI rifles, even the Anschulz series in the humble .22 lr are all in that capability amongst others. These days even some of the side by side Express Rifle manufacturer's like Beretta, Baiklal etc are guanrteeing sub MoA.

People on this board are apparently shooting sub MoA with weapons such as stock AR-15's and AK clones with Milsurp..

Personally I beleive in the hands of an above average shooter even something like the humble CZ 42 with the right ammunition can be well under 1 MOA at 100 Meters.

I cant shoot sub-MOA groups consistently... I lack talent. However I do own weapons that can do so... I dont understand the fuss.

 

[SamTuckerMTNMAN]

I just sit quiet and do my best. Often outcomes are different than the talk. And since I may have a bad day best if I shut up and just shoot. Bruce Lee once said, "Man discovers freedom the moment he loses consiousness of the self." Marksmanship is a martial art in the purest of form.

st

 

[MrDig]

Fineredmist "Murphy spends a lot of time at the range."
He must be busy as Heck cause he spends a lot of time in my boat too.

All of my rifles out preform my ability to shoot. This is just a matter of practicing more, but at this point, I have yet to outshoot one of my rifles.

 

[innerpiece]

as has been said over and over.. if yer rifle can do it once, it can again.. conditions and user error are the determining factors.

knowing exactly what yer rifle will do, is important, so is trigger pull, posture, and how yer rifle is rested, and about everything you can and cant think of, for precision shooting.

SniperII is a great book for those who dont have the means to be trained by professional marksmen.

an educated rifleman, will judge himself by his largest regular groups... those are the ones you learn from!


ip.

 

[itgoesboom]

as has been said over and over.. if yer rifle can do it once, it can again.. conditions and user error are the determining factors.

Innerpiece, I am going to both agree with you, and disagree with you at the same time.

A rifle can throw a flyer into a group, just like it can throw a flyer out of a group. So I don't trust that a rifle that normally shoots 2.5" @ 100yards, but has once thrown a 1" group at the same distance, is a 1MOA rifle.

On the flip side, if a person shoots four groups at the same range, using the same ammo, .45", .67", .53" and 3".....I will tend to believe that the rifle is indeed a <MOA rifle, and that the shooter is the one at fault for the large group.

And really, it's not too difficult to figure out if it is the rifle/ammo combo or the shooter. When you shoot the rifle, follow through, and call your shot before you look at the target to see where you hit.

If you call it perfect, and it hits a few inches away, you might have a bad rifle/ammo combination, or a scope issue, etc.

If you call the shot off, right and high, and the POI is right and high, that means it is clearly the shooter.

 

[Davo]

I consider five groups of 5 shots each to be the gold standard. If on the same outing, you can shoot 5 groups of 5 and all are Sub MOA you have a sub MOA rifle. I agree its frustrating when people claim a rifle is SUB MOA because it once shot a sub MOA group. Even more so when it gets done "All day".
My k31's are not MOA rifles, even scoped they are typically 1.25 MOA, and SUB MOA groups are rare.
My 10fp IS sub MOA, and honestly I have to be having a bad day to shoot 1MOA or more. This is with handloads off a bipod with rear bag.

 

[cameron.personal]

I think it's funny how people talk about 1 MOA at a 100 yards like it is different from 1 MOA at 200 yards...

 

[Charles S]

Gewehr98,

I think you and may others have missed the point of the thread. It is not that MOA cannot be done. Nor that there are plenty of people who posses the equipment and capability to produce MOA groups. I believe that the point is that if you listen to talk everyone can shoot MOA or better. You have very nice (custom) equipment, experience, practice, and knowledge. I for one do not doubt your claims.

OTH when a guy in my local hunting club states that his box stock Ruger 25-06 with a Simmons scope and a 8+ pound trigger shoots 1/2 MOA I am doubtfully. I at the range I find that he cannot reproduce the claimed groups. This is not uncommon.

I think that the point of the post is not that MOA cannot be achieve, but that if you listen to claims everyone achieves that or better with whatever equipment is used. I find this true where I live, but when I go to range I also find that MOA rifles, by my definition, are not that common.

 

[115grfmj]

My peronsal favorites......

are the guys that go to the range and their rifles never leave the rest ....and they brag about their groups...and then wonder why they miss in the field. Most modern rifles are capable of significatly more than the average user, more still if time is taken to work up the proper load. However, Riflery is a learned skill that only comes through frequent practice....away from the rest! Personal I sight in my rifles from the rest to ensure they are hitting POA, then I put the rest away, and practice my field positions. Sorry for the rant....but we all get to hung up on Sub MOA groups...which under most circumstance are not dupicatable in the field.

 

[kir_kenix]

its frustrating when people claim a rifle is SUB MOA because it once shot a sub MOA group. Even more so when it gets done "All day".

okay...well this pretty much sums up what i was getting at i guess. never meant to doubt that people on this board could and have shot sub moa groups, just that it is not as common or repeatable as people make it sounds. i know since i started recording my groups i was suprised out how often my groups were twice the size i would have figured that i averaged.

 

[taliv]

I think it's funny how people talk about 1 MOA at a 100 yards like it is different from 1 MOA at 200 yards...

it is different. one is about 1 inch. the other about 2".

 

[Caimlas]

Eh, I think most rifles manufactured today are probably capable of MOA groups out of the box. The problem comes in when you introduce the shooter and the ammunition. A shooter who can consistently get sub-MOA groups with almost any rifle isn't usually going to be able to do so with all brands of ammo - from what I understand, those groups are typically achieved with handloads fashioned for a specific rifle.

Last week I shot my 16" RRA AR15 with a cheap Leapers 4x scope at 100 yards sitting and prone, 20 shots (about 10 each, checked every three or four shots). The result was (after the 5 shots to sight in) a single jagged hole about 2" in diameter. I was just using Fiocchi .223, cheapest stuff I could find, but evidently it's pretty consistent. The shooting wasn't that fantastic, other than it was consistent (I took quite a while on each shot), but the group was pretty decent.

Also, a 3-shot group isn't the same as a 5-shot group. You'll get more variance with the more shots you take. It's pretty easy to make 3-shot 1-MOA groups all day with one out of (say) three of the groups having what you deem a "flier due to me not doing my part" - when, in fact, you may have done your part, but the ammo is inconsistent.

Another "for instance": I've got a Tikka T3 .270 Winchester. I like the gun, but I can't get groups much smaller than 1.5" with 9x magnification. I've read that .270 Win ammo is pretty inconsistent from the factory because it's not a popular caliber, and is generally "just" a hunting rifle, where such grouping capability neither matters or is that greatly desired (ironically, considering the long-range flat shooting capability of the round).

 

[~z]

Eh, never mind.
~z