Which "Black" Rifle???

[TonyAngel]

OK, I really didn't intend to get into all of this in the poor guys thread, but geez.

Averaging MOA is NOT shooting MOA. When someone says that a rifle/ammo combo shoots MOA, I take that mean that it will shoot MOA and anything more than MOA is out of the ordinary. By your way of thinking, shooting worse that MOA is still ok as long as the average is MOA. So, by your definition, what is a MOA rifle/ammo combo? One that will shoot MOA half the time, or better than half the time? That's not how it works.

 

[CraigC]

How else do you figure it??? I've never seen it figured any other way. You're never gonna shoot the same every time, all the time. If your average of five consecutive five-shot groups is MOA or less and it does it on more than one occasion, that's an MOA rifle/load. Again, I'm talking about consecutive groups fired on the same day.

 

[TonyAngel]

Nope, a MOA rifle/ammo combo will shoot MOA at least 99% of the time. I say 99%, because no one is perfect and everyone throws a shot out sometimes. By your definition, a rifle/ammo combo only has to shoot MOA half the time in order to be considered a MOA combo. If you take this line of reasoning into a match, you're going to wind up with a lot of losses.

 

[CraigC]

I think we're having a communication breakdown. I'm not telling you that after I empty them I shoot beer cans off a five gallon bucket and that I 'think' the rifle will shoot MOA most the time. I'm not saying that it shoots MOA sometimes and sometimes it doesn't. I'm also not talking about scores from a benchrest match. I'm telling you that for five consecutive five shot groups, the mathematical average is MOA. No, it ain't exactly MOA every group because this is the real world. Groups may range from let's say .8 to 1.2 MOA and average 1MOA. Now I'm sure that some folks will take those numbers and say their rifle will shoot .8MOA "all day long" but I'm not here to brag or blow smoke. So when I say 1MOA, that is an average of a broadly accepted number of groups, consisting of a broadly accepted number of shots. Or more, many fire only three shots, I do five. Either that or after 25yrs of reading and creating range reports I've got it all wrong.

I say 99%, because no one is perfect and everyone throws a shot out sometimes.

Well then you're talking about averages too.

 

[Cosmoline]

I don't read a statement that a rifle will shoot X ammunition MOA to mean the rifle will shoot X ammunition in an inch or less at 100 99 times out of 100. I've never heard of anyone taking 100 shots to determine an average group size. And I've never heard that if the rifle is off TWICE out of 100 shots, it's cast out and forbidden from being called MOA.

It reminds me of an argument about who could call themselves a "cyclist." The main point is I understood what Craig C was referring to and I think most folks did, too. Average group size with sufficient groups to get a good test, under good conditions from a rest. Not every single bullet falling within the bullseye every single time. As I understand it, if you indeed have a laser-like AR that puts every single round save one out of 100 within an inch, you likely have a SUB MOA firearm by average of group size.

And if we're going to pick nits, then most "MOA rifles" even by the restrictive definition of 99/100 are still not TRUE MOA rifles because most won't be able to stay in the cone out to 500, 800 or 1,000 yards.

If you take this line of reasoning into a match, you're going to wind up with a lot of losses.

Did he say he was going to clean up at matches with the M&P shooting federal XM193?

 

[meanmrmustard]

Craig, if your rifles shoots MOA, consistently, with M193 you either have a very special rifle on got a hold of a particularly good lot of M193.

In any case, reliability is, in a way, subjective. Your rifle has been reliable over 1000 rounds. It's not having been cleaned is a non issue because any AR that has been put together right and is in spec should run dirty, as long as it's been properly lubed.

Of course, reliability also entails performance under strain. When the parts are smoking, skin searing hot. It is under these sorts of continued conditions that some lesser rifles will fail. Most will never drive their rifles that hard and will, therefor, never realize the benefits of buying something like a Colt. As a practical matter, I'd guess that most AR owners don't put more than 1000 or 2000 rounds through their rifle in a year.

This sounds more like durability of the shooter. Which means nothing.

 

[meanmrmustard]

No, I'm talking about Federal M193 manufactured at the Lake City plant. Yeah, the "good" stuff. It is not, nor was it ever intended to be precision ammuntion by any stretch of the imagination. It is just a rock solid and reliable ammunition. That's it.

Like I said, if you can get consistent MOA groups out of your AR with M193, then you have something special going on.



I know that articulating yourself on the net sometimes leaves room for misinterpretation, so I'm asking; are you basing your above post on a belief or actual practice? I've had several ARs that shot very sub MOA with match handloads and I've shot tens of thousands of rounds of M193 and I'm saying, based on experience, that shooting MOA with that ammunition is more the exception than the rule.

That line of thinking leaves many questions: Can you prove you've shot that many rounds, or can we trust that the several of you arguing over one particular load know what your rigs are capable of with M193?

 

[TonyAngel]

mustard, as usual, thanks for the words of wisdom.

 

[meanmrmustard]

mustard, as usual, thanks for the words of wisdom.

Sarcasm noted. But, still doesn't answer MY question.

Are we to assume that CraigC's accuracy reports are false, due in part to one other members claims of the load in question being anything but accurate? Or, does Tony have solid evidence that the M193 is a subpar load? What are you/have you been firing it from? What distance? Rested? Prone?

Inquiring mind wants to know. Feel free to indulge the wise

 

[powder]

Quite right, and they cannot articulate WHY/HOW that premium of $$ translates to...? What? Nice rifle, have fun shooting.

I did a lot of research before buying mine and what I found is that all you're really gonna get is a bunch of opinions from a bunch of guys that never owned ALL of those rifles. Some opinions will be very specific, most will be quite vague. So here is mine. My S&W M&P15OR cost me $600, shoots MOA with Federal XM193 and has been dead reliable. I've done a few things to it that made it much more useful to me and all it needs now is a good target trigger. Lots of folks will disagree without even really knowing why but I really don't see a reason to pay the Colt premium.

 

[TexasPatriot.308]

kinda like blonde or brunette. make your own choice.

 

[meanmrmustard]

kinda like blonde or brunette. make your own choice.

Ha! Both. Easy choice.

 

[KyPlinker]

What the chart represents are key features which insure the quality of the rifle. Properly staked components, properly tested and regulated components, quality control, consistency between builds, all of these play a major part in the quality of a weapon, and i find it astonishing that you can't get it through your head.

Its like buying a chinese airsoft copy of an aimpoint or acog, and then expecting it to function the same, in the same conditions, as the real number. If you don't plan on using the weapon to defend your life with, or to fire high round counts without breaking with, then get whatever brand you want. If the opposite is true, have the Colt. There isnt that much of a "price premium" either. An $1100 Colt LE6920 is not a huge jump from a $700 DPMS pile of steaming ****. Wait another month, save the money, it will pay you back in the long run.

 

[powder]

No, the chart is a listing of build differences: barrel material, pins, etc.. It is not a guarantee of quality of a weapon, that ANYBODY needs to get in their head. Chrome barrels are easier to clean when using corrosive ammo., and fight heat better when fire is sustained-that's it. "The Chart" has become a marketing tool for a few builders to say they have "Mil Spec" rifles, which solely depends on the customers' PERCEPTIONS that a mil spec item is of higher quality-which it is not; a mil spec item has gone through the moronic hoops of the Dept. of Defense for a possible contract-that's it!

...and no again: buying a Rock River, DPMS, STAG, or Bushmaster is not like buying Chinese knock-off junk. You can certainly hold that opinion, but you have just made it to the "ignore" list for thousands of rifle owners.

Value: see, you make the assumption that the $400 price difference is nothing substantial for an everyday American, married, with 2 or 3 children. That price difference is more than a case of ammo., or maybe groceries for a month. Get over "the chart" as being a sacred document please.

What the chart represents are key features which insure the quality of the rifle. Properly staked components, properly tested and regulated components, quality control, consistency between builds, all of these play a major part in the quality of a weapon, and i find it astonishing that you can't get it through your head.

Its like buying a chinese airsoft copy of an aimpoint or acog, and then expecting it to function the same, in the same conditions, as the real number. If you don't plan on using the weapon to defend your life with, or to fire high round counts without breaking with, then get whatever brand you want. If the opposite is true, have the Colt. There isnt that much of a "price premium" either. An $1100 Colt LE6920 is not a huge jump from a $700 DPMS pile of steaming ****. Wait another month, save the money, it will pay you back in the long run.

 

[JustinJ]

...and no again: buying a Rock River, DPMS, STAG, or Bushmaster is not like buying Chinese knock-off junk. You can certainly hold that opinion, but you have just made it to the "ignore" list for thousands of rifle owners.

So there are only two levels of guns? Chinese knock offs or quality with nothing in between. Nope.

"The Chart" has become a marketing tool for a few builders to say they have "Mil Spec" rifles, which solely depends on the customers' PERCEPTIONS that a mil spec item is of higher quality-which it is not;

I'm pretty sure AR maker were claiming milspec long before the chart. What the chart did was help to reveal which were misleading.

 

[powder]

So there are only two levels of guns? Chinese knock offs or quality with nothing in between. Nope.

If you are directing this at me, you are not reading-KY was saying all others besides the Colt/BCM/DD/LWRC ARs, are like buying chi-com knock-off crap.

I'm pretty sure AR maker were claiming milspec long before the chart. What the chart did was help to reveal which were misleading.

No, they were not "claiming" mil spec, they were actually approved through the mil spec process of paperwork at the DOD, which is required for contracts: mil spec has NOTHING to do with quality, it simply is a standard for measuring quality for a benchmark within a specified contract, for that sale. Similar to ISO 9001: it's an agreed standard-which of course if you have worked in a 9001 factory, you know it's still not a quality guarantee-look at G.M..

The chart has NOTHING more to do with anything other than SALES, and misleading people to believe one set of products (theirs) are better than the competition.(RRA, BM, DPMS, Stag, etc..)

The chart IS a great reference point for SOME of the players in the market, yet is does nothing to describe WHY or HOW one sort of method or materials is better. Why do I discount "the Chart"? It is missing about 65% of the AR producers in the current U.S. market today. The people who espouse the chart as being the standard , didn't do their homework either. They have bought the sales pitch hook/line/charging handle.

So the melonite barrels of S&W or RRA might be worn to inaccuracy at 5000-10,000 rounds? Pull it off and replace it. DO your BCG at the same time, if you think it needs it. Whoopee.

 

[JustinJ]

mil spec has NOTHING to do with quality, it simply is a standard for measuring quality for a benchmark within a specified contract, for that sale.

It has nothing to do with quality but is a benchmark for measuring quality? U huh. The specified contract is to provide a product intended for military use. The whole point of the specifications is to ensure those weapons are held to a minimum standard of overall durability and reliability. This is accomplished by use of parts of a specific standard and assembly techniques. Some parts and methods have proven to be create less reliable and durable guns. That doesn't mean they are junk but they will simply have higher incidences of failures and reduced durability. There may be some methods that are better than the milspec but that is not what is being discussed.

Similar to ISO 9001: it's an agreed standard-which of course if you have worked in a 9001 factory, you know it's still not a quality guarantee-look at G.M..

Its a method to reduce the overall incidence of failures. Quality is relative and subjective but there is no question that certain materials and methods are superior to others.

The chart has NOTHING more to do with anything other than SALES, and misleading people to believe one set of products (theirs) are better than the competition.(RRA, BM, DPMS, Stag, etc..)

AR makers have been marketing their commercial offerings as "milspec" long before the chart became popular even though their guns were far from it. What evidence do you have that the chart was created by a gun maker to boost sales? I'm guessing none what so ever.

The chart IS a great reference point for SOME of the players in the market, yet is does nothing to describe WHY or HOW one sort of method or materials is better.

Its a freaking chart. The information is out there for anybody who wants to understand how the standards offer advantage over other methods and materials.

Why do I discount "the Chart"? It is missing about 65% of the AR producers in the current U.S. market today. The people who espouse the chart as being the standard , didn't do their homework either. They have bought the sales pitch hook/line/charging handle.

The chart has most of the major makers and is a useful tool for those considering a purchase from the listed makers. Consumer reports doesn't list every possible make and model of each product on the market. That doesn't mean their information is not extremely useful.

 

[KyPlinker]

I just find it hilarious that you are such a staunch supporter of inferior equipment. Im not going to knock you as a person if you are buying a DPMS/RRA/what the **** ever instead of getting a Colt/BCM/LWRC/quality rifle. What i am saying is that all you have to do is google the materials in "the chart" to find out which is the better component, material, or type of QC testing. Its simple. There is no document on the internet that will jump out of the screen and say "Hey powder this is exactly why colt is superior to RRA", so, in the mean time, we have to act like intelligent humans and read and study about different brands of firearms. Your weapon is not complete garbage, and it was wrong of me to say such a thing in my earlier post. Buy whatever you want, just be very aware that there are superior items out there. When i am at work, (servicing 135ish Colt select fire ar-types, as well as colt m203s and other weapons that meet a "mil spec"), i try my best to steer younger paratroopers towards putting quality equipment on their weapons. Magpul instead of tapco, VLTOR instead of CAA, etc... I can give them all the reasons in the world, but if they want to spend $25 on a pimp ass looking tapco stock that busts on the first training event they take it on, instead of spending another $5 and getting a magpul or other brand, thats on them. I can open the door, but i cant make you walk through it.

 

[CraigC]

"Hey powder this is exactly why colt is superior to RRA"

No, but those who keep regurgitating "Colt is better" should be able to explain why and in detail. I don't know, I wish I did. I can tell you why Colt SAA's are better than Uberti SAA's and I can also tell you why USFA SAA's are head and shoulders above Colt. AR's are just not my specialty.

 

[KyPlinker]

Quality control is the major reason. Colt is not the best AR out there, HOWEVER, because of the "mil spec" standard that its service rifles are expected to uphold by the US government in order to maintain their military contracts, (which their LE and civ models emulate), they are able to consistently produce quality, reliable ARs. Properly staked castle nuts, properly assembled and staked bolt carriers, specific metals used in, and specific creation of the barrels and other components. Testing of bolts and chambers with over pressured rounds during and after production, as well as test firing rifles, and paying extra attention to the guns as they come off of the line. These are a few of the reasons that Colt rifles are "the standard" when it comes to reliable fighting carbines. In addition to all of these reasons, Colt is also not shy about releasing information about their carbines and practices. If i send a company asking them about their materials or testing, i would appreciate a response, as opposed to no response, or a pre packaged quote about how they cant release that information, as a few notable companies did in the above mentioned chart. All of this, plus the fact that of the 135 Colt M4/M16 series weapons that i service, the only malfunctions i have witnessed have been caused by ammunition, magazines, or the one time where a rifle was released from the jumper at about 200-300 feet above ground level, and landed barrel first on the drop zone, but i would think any other rifle would fail that test, 9 times out of 10.

 

[jason41987]

How about a SIG 556. All the bugs are out for almost 3 years now.

sig 551-A1 would be better.. it uses more reliable magazines

 

[Quentin]

Quote: "The chart IS a great reference point for SOME of the players in the market, yet is does nothing to describe WHY or HOW one sort of method or materials is better. Why do I discount "the Chart"? It is missing about 65% of the AR producers in the current U.S. market today. The people who espouse the chart as being the standard , didn't do their homework either. They have bought the sales pitch hook/line/charging handle."


You really should spend half an hour reading the explanation section of the chart. Somehow you missed it apparently. Plenty of concise information plus links to more detail.

As far as the manufacturers not in the chart, well get them to give you the charted 20+ specs required by the US military for the M4 rifle. Good luck BTW, odds are most brands won't give you that info. But if you can get it for brand X, well then it's simple to see how the brand would have done. Of course there are many more specs in the M4 Technical Data Package but the chart just pulls together a score of important specs and makes it easy to read.

And the chart was put together by a knowledgeable fellow, Rob Sloyer, who wanted to make a spreadsheet of important M4 specs. He released it to AR forums and it took a life of its own as serious users realized how useful this data was. It was not created to be a sales tool, instead as an information tool. And it has nothing to do with configurations of the AR other than M4 lookalikes.

 

[Reloadron]

This forum has a very diverse membership. We have members who are just getting started shooting to members that have been shooting since Christ was a young corporal in the Marine Corps. We also have shooters with a wide gap of income. For example is $400 a lot of money? I guess that depends, if you have $400 to spend then no, however, if you don't have $400 then it can be a hell of a lot of money.

Which "Black" Rifle???

The very best black rifle (or OD green rifle) is the rifle you can afford to buy and continue to put beanies and weenies on the dinner table. Buy a Bushmaster from Gander Mountain for $800 or buy an M15A4 RIFLE STAINLESS STEEL BLACK ArmaLite rifle for $1,500. Buy the rifle that works best for you and most important the rifle that fits your budget. There is always time to move up later.

Keep in mind the guys building and selling these creatures market them well. There are no shortage of marketing ploys used. If you do not plan to drag the rifle into combat you don't need a military specification rifle. Arguing military specifications and quality standards becomes a moot point.

Just My Take
Ron

 

[powder]

LOL! Yup, been shooting Colts and actual "mil spec" rifles for just over 25 years now.

Trained SRT for L.E. duty.

I've spent a good deal of time looking at the "chart". Know why? As a former Mil. guy, L.E.O., Autoworker/machinist, I'm curious about this spec. sheet that is missing a HUGE number of manufacturers, and why it is so revered , by so many, none of whom have qualified their opinions.

From what I read, this Rob Sloyer guy is most unprofessional in a public forum; not an example to look to as reasonable or dependable. Guy is engaged in some sort of Forum wars about his spec sheet?

Take a look at that new movie "Branded"? Fits the narrow vision of the COLT/BCM/DD/LWRC/TROY/MI crowd. They make good guns, but so do A LOT of other AR builders.

You can gauge just how much of a knee-jerk (emotional) effect the "chart" has, when defenders of those brands start calling unknown people names, alluding to ignorance, lack of experience,etc.. False pride and overinflated ego is the cannon fodder on the battle-field. Good times. Keepin it respectful.

 

[TonyAngel]

That line of thinking leaves many questions: Can you prove you've shot that many rounds, or can we trust that the several of you arguing over one particular load know what your rigs are capable of with M193?

OK, you've got me. I haven't shot that many rounds of M193 in a precision format, although I have shot that many rounds practicing, shooting matching, classes and doing drills. Believe me, I didn't need to shoot tens of thousands of rounds of M193 to come to the conclusion that it is NOT ammunition that will consistently produce MOA results.

Are we to assume that CraigC's accuracy reports are false, due in part to one other members claims of the load in question being anything but accurate? Or, does Tony have solid evidence that the M193 is a subpar load? What are you/have you been firing it from? What distance? Rested? Prone?

I didn't say that his accuracy reports were false. I only said that if he is getting MOA results shooting M193, then he has something special going on. I then contested his method of determining that a rifle/ammunition combination should be considered to be a MOA rig.

How do I test ammo? When testing for accuracy potential, I shoot at a bench, from a rest with a good mount (for ARs this means either a Larue or American Defense) and scope (Nightforce 5.5-22X50) on top of the rifle at 100 yards.

I've done serious accuracy testing on at least a dozen ARs that were precision oriented and always tested M193 with the hope that lightning would strike and I'd find a rifle that would shoot M193 well.

As for proving to you that M193 is not a good precision ammunition, I'm not up for expending the time. I've been there, done that and have come to my conclusions. If you want to read about the experiences of others, I'd suggest that you just do a google search on the topic of the accuracy of M193.

Then you can take 20 rounds, check them for concentricity, pull the bullets, weigh them, check them for concentricity, check the powder charge weights and take note of the bullet that is used. It's what I did after the first time I tried shooting groups with M193 and was left scratching my head wondering what happened.

M193 is meant to be nothing more than a reliable round that is cheap to manufacturer. If I remember correctly, the ammunition is only required to produce 2 or 3 MOA accuracy to meet spec. What makes M193 great isn't its accuracy potential, it's the fact that it's reliable. Crimped and sealed primers, sealed at the neck and the brass is annealed.