Is there a report on the AMU's experiments? I'd like to read it.
I think the disconnect here is due to two trains of thought. One group is looking at the machine, the other the man and machine.
I wasn't referring to anyone doing experiments themselves, I have some questions about how they did them and what they were trying to learn, because I'm pretty sure it wasn't to discover the usefulness of the magwedge. It's relevant to the conversation.
If a rifle shoots 1 MOA at 100yds, it shoots 1 MOA and 800yds...
Edit...yes again...
Regarding the AMU's "credentials". This isn't designing the Apollo Rocket. If you had access to their method (and followed it to the letter) and similar equipment you would get the same results. If not their results are incorrect. This is where I distrust the "dogma". I hear about the experiments and how receivers were welded together, but no one has yet produced a link to the report on the study. I can also see how a mil-spec receiver would not benefit IF the rifle is held exactly the same way each time. I can also see situations where the Rifle is not held the same way because there is no contact between the rifle upper and the shooter (bipod). Also are the rifles used in the experiments actually Mil-spec, i.e., randomly pulled off the shelf, or the typical practice of military rifle teams selecting the rifles that group better. Most of the comments here are basically the internet says the AMU did this so it must be so. The part of me that spent 6 months recording data from bench test/pilot equipment wants the details before I accept the common belief.
Ok so first off, yes a proper hold on the rifle should be what we are discussing, not bench rest shooting with an AR - that really should be another topic all together. If one is shooting from a bipod with an AR and not holding onto the upper, that is pure fail and then the discussion should regress to marksmanship 101.
I not aware of the USAMU publishing reports of any kind, but that is not to say they haven't. I've just never cared enough to bother looking.
A number of articles and books have been published over the years which cover match shooting with the AR, and within, the authors and subject mater experts speak to their experience with this testing anecdotally. G. Zediker's books on the AR cover it from a number of sources including the author. If that wasn't good enough, and because I'm always the sceptic, I've done my own informal testing. As stated, and in case some have missed it - the fitment between upper and lower receiver groups does not affect the mechanical potential accuracy of the rifle.
While the AMU is constantly being cited, there is good reason. They use the AR platform for testing and matches at a professional level, and do it for a living. They employ world class shooters and gunsmiths, sparing no expense in the process. They are experts in the field and when they share information, even anecdotally, I tend to pay attention.
Bottom line is do whatever you feel floats your boat. If you feel it makes a difference for you, then giver'. Just know that people who know better, know that the rifle doesn't care - it's putting bullets where the sights are pointed.
Personally I would never do something that works for me and sell it as gospel, and have a real hard time when others do it.
