What is an acceptable MOA for a military rifle?

[CarbineKid]

I am curious as to what the military considers acceptable accuracy out of a front line rifle??

 

[Striker]

1 MOM (Minute of Man)

Seriously, 2 MOA as a rule of thumb, though a representative sample of a specific type will do bettter or worse depending on operator and/or ammo.

 

[CarbineKid]

So what about foreign militarys? The AK is used throughtout the world, but I hear they are not 2 moa

 

[quatin]

I think the US military uses 4 MOA for battle rifles and 1 MOA for sniper rifles.

 

[kir_kenix]

im not sure, but i would think 3-4 moa on battle rifle. using ball ammo this would sound about right to me.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I've seen a figure of greater than 7.2MOA at 300yds with ball ammo as being the repair or replace standard for existing rifles that are in-service. IIRC, the specification for M855 and M193 ball require the ammo not to have a greater than 4MOA deviation out to 300yds, so I doubt the practical accuracy requirement is going to be less than 4MOA.

The difference is the military uses much larger sample at longer distances (300yds). So ammo that the military considers 4MOA ammo is quite capable of kicking out a 3rd 1MOA group at 100yds on occasion.

 

[kir_kenix]

i didnt know that the ammo the military uses was held to quite that standard. ive gotten surplus .223 (south african i believe) that didnt shoot nearly as well as stateside comercial ammo. i didnt figure the US's ammo would be too much better, and i could never really tell while shooting my new m16 at ft knox. all i know is we had a starteling number of ftf's on brand new rifles in both years i was there.

 

[AZ Jeff]

IIRC correctly, acceptance standards for new production M14's and M1's was 4 MOA when firing standard issue ball ammo from any given lot, with a statistical sample size of in excess of 50 shots.

I don't remember if the standards for the M16 are any different or not.

 

[AZ Jeff]

So what about foreign militarys? The AK is used throughtout the world, but I hear they are not 2 moa

I remember reading that Soviet 7.62x39 ball ammo, (captured during VN and Afghanistan) was suprisingly POOR in accuracy, when tested from a "Mann" barrel--on the order of 4MOA by itself. Once you added in the inherent disperson of the rifle, a typical AK as issued to Soviet troops, firing issue ammo, would often do no better than 6MOA.

Nowadays, people report MUCH better accuracy than that, so I assume that the consistency of 7.62x39 ammo from former Combloc countries has taken a quantum leap forward.

 

[C-grunt]

My old roommate was an armorer and he told me that it was 4 MOA. He also said that 99% of the M-16s actually shot closer to 2 MOA.

 

[miko]

6 moa at 200 yards groups in 12 inches - about the width of a person's chest area.
4 moa at 300 yards groups in same 12 inches.

You might want better than that - say, 3 or 2, but considering the weight, expense, etc. - there is not much general improvement.

For example, Mini14 is reliable as heck but notoriously "inaccurate" 3 moa, though some are known to shoot better out of the box. Consider that the effective range of 5.56 ammo out of the Mini barrel is about 200 yards. Say, you shoot 300 yards. That 3 moa at 300 yards is just 9 inches - quite sufficient.
Would you want to make it more accurate by installing a heavier barrel?
Strictly speaking, Mini-14 is not a battle rifle but a Carbine, but so are AK and AR.

miko

 

[quatin]

I keep seeing references to MOA in terms of yardage. Am I not using this correctly or does MOA not mean minute of angel and is entirely disassociated with distance?

 

[Stiletto Null]

1MOA = (1/60)º

2*sin((1/120)º) = 2.909e-4

100yd * 36in/yd * 2.909e-4 = 1.047"

One minute of angle = 1.047 inches at 100 yards.

 

[Loanshark]

I keep seeing references to MOA in terms of yardage. Am I not using this correctly or does MOA not mean minute of angel and is entirely disassociated with distance?

While this is correct, some projectiles path will change further downrange. Certain rifles will shoot 1moa @ 100 yards = to 1 inch group. That same rifle might shoot 2moa @ 300 yards = to a six inch group. HTH

 

[JesseL]

I keep seeing references to MOA in terms of yardage. Am I not using this correctly or does MOA not mean minute of angel and is entirely disassociated with distance?

In theory, yes. But in reality there are more factors affecting the bullets path than just it's initial trajectory from the gun.

Remember that as soon as the bullet leaves the muzzle, it starts decelerating. It takes the bullet longer less time to get from 0>100 yards than it does to get from 100>200 yards. Things like wind, and bullet destabilization at the supersonic > subsonic transition will have increasing effects as range increases. So, while a rifle may easily shoot 1" groups at 100 yards, it is much more difficult to shoot 10" groups at 1000 yards.

 

[quatin]

Oh ok, I see where you're coming from, but shouldn't the more "politically correct" phrasing be inches at xxx yards? Stating a MOA would seem to imply that it has a linear dispersion field.

 

[ZeroCool]

HA...

Just got done watching a show on the military channel where they went to FN's factory to show how the M16 is made and assembled. Cool show and cool factory. At the end, they had to test the rifles and make sure that their accuracy was within 4 MOA (they did not say distance). The test targets they showed were well within 1 MOA from what I could see.

On a side note, there was a great story within the show about how a father at the plant found out that he actually assembled and final proofed a rifle that his son is currently using in Iraq. Touching, it was...

 

[Stiletto Null]

Let's see...

"My rifle groups 0.4" at 50yd" vs. "My rifle groups 0.8MOA".

Within reasonable limits, you do get linear scaling of groups with distance. More importantly, MOA are useful units for thinking in when you're trying to figure out how far something is based on its size in reticule. (Rangefinding grids are usually based on MOA or mil increments.)

Or for adjusting sights.

 

[CornCod]

Of course it all depends on the philosophy of the particular military. The Russians and their old clients and satellites are heirs of the submachine-gun heritage of the Soviet Union's Great Patriotic War, which morphed into the AK-47. The current idea there is to have one Dragunov for every squad, so if longer range shots are necessary, the Dragunov man takes them.

The US military has an assault rifle too, but there always remained a legacy of the longer-range marksmanship ideal. When they went over to the M-16A-2 with its heavier barrel and better accuracy it was the more conservative element in the ascendancy.

There will always be all sorts of issues like serviceabilty, tolerances, fit and finish. The bottom line is you can't turn every soldier into a de facto sniper. Peter Kokalis write an interesting article in Shotgun News recently about some Central American Army he was working for (was it Guatamala or El Salvador?) that bought a whole bunch of fancy Steyr sniper rifles but the rough and tumble rigors of military life turned the lot of them into junk in the course of a couple years.