You probably get tired of me writing that, but it is true. Nationally-ranked shooter Konrad Powers does the math to explain why.

Absolutely; way too many people get tied up with needing to see .50 or less groups with all their AR's.

Nothing wrong with 1 MOA at all for all reasonable, practical purposes.

MM

I'll go out on a limb and say there's very few true half MOA AR'S out there..

Winning in the Wind. Picking a node. Go to 6:30 to get to the meat. It seems to be the same concept just explained differently.

Except the fact that at 600 yards the 10 ring is .5 moa.... Everyone always forgets that...

I"d be ok with an MOA gun and have won stuff with it. But you need a good load for 300 rapid. A really good load for 600. Unless you never wobble and never miss the wind calls. And if that were the case 200/20x plus would be the norm. Since the x ring is MOA.

200 you don't need much. Ball ammo even.

Just like the video I have posted here a couple times. This guy is using ammo that only shoots 1 1/2 moa on a good day. More likely 2+ moa most days:

Wars have been won with 2 MOA rifles so I’d think that there isn’t much that can’t be done with a consistent 1 MOA rifle….at least out to 500 or 600 yards.

We can go back and forth on this one, but the more we talk about what is acceptable and what target is acceptable to shoot at, that may further the agenda of the left wing gun grabbing group. A lot of us aren't shooting steel silhouettes of deer and elk. There's always a lot of talk about "torso" sized targets. I get it, some of you train that way. But then you are basically giving them what they want. Even in the video I posted. That guy shoots well with the AR platform, but he's shooting at a man sized/shaped silhouette. I'll buy 1 moa for "practical" purposes and accuracy, but if you are competing, I agree with what rost said. Unless you shoot like a machine and make every wind call and you don't have nerves, a 1 moa rifle is only going to be so so. Lets call that 1 moa for 10 shots too, since most of the time that is what you are putting on the target downrange. Then I'd take every ounce of precision I can get. Hoping for far better than 1 moa. I will also agree with the guy that said there are damn few real 1/2 moa AR's out there. Maybe some of rost's competition guns, but none of mine are.. A rifle with a higher degree of precision will give you a very good edge. Anyone that says otherwise, may be sitting in their armchair with grand illusions. I also did not watch the video because it is a computer generated simulation. Those targets were not shot in real life and real world conditions, but showing you what a perfectly zeroed rifle may be able to do. Repeat perfectly zeroed rifle. Like someone here said one time, every time you hit the 10 ring, that is an error. the object is to hit the x-ring. Being off the X-ring shows you what you are doing wrong. It's a deviation of sorts. There is also a reason why guys prefer shooting steel. Steel is easy. Paper targets, on the other hand, never lie.. Paper targets show where you fu cked up.. Oh guys gonna hate that schidt, but it's the truth..

I am sure you remember the A2's that were so used and worn they wobbled a bit from the upper/lower receiver during boot camp and even in the fleet. But once you slung them up tight, for some reason, even with green tip, it wasn't any big thing to work over the 500 meter target. For combat, I don't how much more accuracy was actually needed. In 03 with the A4's came out a few buddies were issued those and thought they were sniper rifles, but I think that had more to do with the optics on top vs some incredible gain in accuracy.

The problem with this post is that the 2A was created for the purpose of shooting tyrants. We water down our rights when we all try to be good little sportsmen. We must never forget, or let anyone forget, that the reason we have guns is to shoot people, not deer or rabbits.

The video shows what our expectations should be, like that the .75 MOA is unlikely to clean an 80 round course. And how a 1/4 MOA better yields improvements so marginal as to be noise.

I'll still take 1/4 improvements.

No, the X is 6" and the 10 is 12". CMP rule 4.6.2 C.


I agree. In competition, a 1 MOA gun drives me crazy. Part of why I posted this is to work on my own head instead of stressing out over what might be a 1 MOA gun.

For me, 200 is all about stacking up Xs (and 300 too, it's just harder). I notice my scores suffer even in standing with ball ammo. I don't think most of it shoots 3 MOA over the course of 10 or 20 shots, even if you get < 2 MOA for 5 shots.

Rules and such. BUT... all I ask is go measure the width of the 10 ring. One side or the other. Just measure it. Its tiny compared to the X. Half the width. When you realize how tiny the 10 ring really is, you realize you should be shooting Xs all the time or have a reason to be in the ten ring. It gives very little room for error.

The thing about the accuracy is we talk often only about how the gun will shoot. But what about wind and missing the call. What about mirage moving bullet impact? Lots dont know that mirage is a totally separate impact factor than what wind does. What about shooter wobble. Heck I've been in the pits enough to know that on windy days the targets even move around some.

Its not really so bad for a one of issue. But if you pile all the X/Y stuff up and it all hits the lotto at once... it can be a horrible shot. That is at least better with a super accurate gun vs a MOA/ish gun. I can work some to get better accuracy. Thats a given. I can't always control the others including my bodies natural wobble. Even prone slung up my wobble was between 1/8 and 1/4 moa on a trainer. To me it looked really still but irons give you that illusion of not moving...scopes drive me nuts but you simply accept it in the zone and keep pressing.

Get back to me once you measure the 10 ring from the edge of the 9 to the edge of the x.... The 7 ring is wide...

The difference between an 8 and a 10 can be as little as a 1/2 minute, slightly over 3” at 600 yards on a MR-1 target.

My use of the AR is strictly and unapologetically martial.

To think the Left will leave you alone because the targets you shoot are circles is not only naive, it’s embarrassing.

If it was all about shooting torso sized silhouettes, I can get by with a fu cking SKS. You are not a precision shooter. You have proven that over and over, but you can carry on. I could care less. Maybe you can go and start another pistol thread? I'll be sure not to shoot on that one, because I hate to hear you cry...

Make my mascara run.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/18115865/1

Video or it didn’t happen.

Yup

The density shows strong here. To think you could even come close with an SKS. I"d delete a post like this to keep from embarrassing myself.

Not sure anyone could be that stupid to assume that. The left is after them all. Anyone that thinks different won't like the outcome. Martin Neimoeller....

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile-hoping it will eat him last.

I totally agree with you when you put it that way.

Agree too. I've lost more points to those than I care to ponder. And add to that, with iron sights - light changes. With a bright sun shining from just due left or right on the front post, I'd get impact changes of up to 4 MOA. Admittedly, my light sensitivity isn't on the "immune" side of the bell curve. Shadows on the target while shooting from the light messed me up horribly too. It was so bad, I took up dry firing in near darkness.

Interestingly enough, and its obviously variable from one to another. Irons and light. I never could see an obvious difference laterally. Vertically I could.

But then when playing with it and a scope, you can visually see what the light is doing and how its playing with your eyes.

So many things out there. So many reasons for the most accurate gun and load you can muster without wasting too much effort.

To me I tested ammo only at 300 and 600. 300 the goal was 2 inch or less round 10 shot groups. Prefer to get closer to 1.5 inch but it was not that easy. 600 I was initially testing 5 shot groups and the goal there was to have 3 inch 5 shot groups. Usually not that hard to get to with a tiny bit of tweaking. And then would take the last variables and make 10 shot test groups and shoot them slung up in matches. Even if local ones DSQ me I'd shoot a sighter and 10 and same. And plot groups and pick from what the plots were telling me was best. Group size done that way often wasn't that impressive, but it was realistic when you add in all the variables.

I've shot optics a few times. Wondered how it would be. And it wasn't bad. Just ignore all the extra wobble you see and as long as its all inside the given, keep pressing.

The clown show continues……