The 1 MOA Hoax: How manufacturers have confused shooters
- Thread starter Gatehouse
- Start date
I agree with the general premise from what I was able to watch before I got tired of listening to this goofy bastard
Two things:
Not a single group shot from bags (#### test of mechanical accuracy)
This guy named his kid Ruger, how could you possibly take him seriously?
Two things:
Not a single group shot from bags (#### test of mechanical accuracy)
This guy named his kid Ruger, how could you possibly take him seriously?
Post pictures of those four rifles targets using his criteria dated today or later with a witness signature and I’ll send you $50.
- Location
- Alberta, North America
Clown
He’s not talking about mechanical accuracy here, he’s talking about manufacturer’s claims of accuracy in an attempt to outsell their competitors. AND, he’s talking about what Joe Average thinks their rifle can shoot because of the advertising.
I don’t see him as being negative, I see him shining some light on an often quoted statistic that has a lot of variables. Years ago Weaterby came out with a line of rifles they called the Sub-MOA. I really looked at them, as that’s quite a name, as well as a claim. When I delved further into the rifle, it stated in the owner’s manual that with “premium” ammunition it was guaranteed to shoot 1 1/2” 3 shot groups. Now that’s not what the name implied, but again, you can name a rifle anything you want. We’re these rifles accurate - damn betcha they were. Did they often exceed their claim - yep, they did. But, in reality, if you read the fine print, as long as you were getting 1 1/2” groups at 100 with match ammo they had met their criteria.
Now, I have to say that I’ve had some really accurate rifles over the years, and many that would shoot MOA all day long with handloads. But, mechanical accuracy aside, I’m not an MOA shooter every day. And I’m sure not going to claim I can shoot MOA breathing hard off a fallen log rest in a hunting situation. Now, I’ve got a buddy that claims he regularly shoots coyotes in the head, while they’re running across a field at 800 yards with an old 270. Like the gun manufacturers, he can claim what he likes - I’ve never been there to see it.
I don’t see him as being negative, I see him shining some light on an often quoted statistic that has a lot of variables. Years ago Weaterby came out with a line of rifles they called the Sub-MOA. I really looked at them, as that’s quite a name, as well as a claim. When I delved further into the rifle, it stated in the owner’s manual that with “premium” ammunition it was guaranteed to shoot 1 1/2” 3 shot groups. Now that’s not what the name implied, but again, you can name a rifle anything you want. We’re these rifles accurate - damn betcha they were. Did they often exceed their claim - yep, they did. But, in reality, if you read the fine print, as long as you were getting 1 1/2” groups at 100 with match ammo they had met their criteria.
Now, I have to say that I’ve had some really accurate rifles over the years, and many that would shoot MOA all day long with handloads. But, mechanical accuracy aside, I’m not an MOA shooter every day. And I’m sure not going to claim I can shoot MOA breathing hard off a fallen log rest in a hunting situation. Now, I’ve got a buddy that claims he regularly shoots coyotes in the head, while they’re running across a field at 800 yards with an old 270. Like the gun manufacturers, he can claim what he likes - I’ve never been there to see it.
Most people have a hard time being realistic. Everyone wants to be perceived as being better than average, so people embellish. Sometimes for so long that those embellishments become "their" truths. Then when a guy like this comes along and tries to be realistic on a platform (Youtube) that survives on highlighting the above average, people call him a goof.
Case in point, I know a guy that has an X95. Claimed it will shoot 1" groups at 100m with factory ammo. I told him I would give him ANY amount of money if he could sit down and shoot 2 or 3 5-round 1" groups at 100m. To his credit, he actually attempted it with us present, but it was nowhere close. Best group he got was about 2 1/4", which I was still reasonably impressed with to be honest, as Tavors aren't known to be super accurate. But I think he fluked a single MOA group one time, and assumed he had a 1 MOA rifle.
...But for real though, what kind of weirdo names their kid Ruger?
Last edited:
I have to be pretty serious to shoot sub moa for 5, it's typically when selecting a factory ammo for a new rifle, will usually have 5 types of ammo with me, barrel already broken in and cleaned, fouler down range, no coffee and serious bench. It's not easy to do, tikka's and sako a7's and blaser k95 all found a couple ammo's each that would do .6-.7" 5 shot groups when on my game but I wouldn't try to repeat for multiple 5 shot groups, I would let cool and grab the next ammo, trying to have them all on the same target for the final compare and measures.
In the field on my gongs from 200 to 500 I generally only shoot 3 shot groups and with my accurate rifles I tend to shoot average of 3/4 moa, I'll shoot a 1/2 moa group then the next one is 1 moa.
The limits to shooting moa are all on the shooter, most accurate guns with a proven load will easily do it, always comes down to the nut behind the wheel. The more field conditions you get the tougher it is to do.
Man those guys were shooting some recoil there too. No thanks.
I would take that challenge if I was at a range with my ruger grendel and hornady black and if it were 3 shots I'd 90% expect to collect 50 bucks but 5 shot consistency he would likely keep his money 90%.
if had my old tikka varmint .204 back (ol' painless
) with the federal factory 39gr blitzkings and 6.5-20 leupold, i would collect that 50 bucks easy, Was not hard to shoot 1" groups at 250 with it.
I think I would have outshot quite a few of those guys with my latest ultralight grendel with the green dot on it lol...
In the field on my gongs from 200 to 500 I generally only shoot 3 shot groups and with my accurate rifles I tend to shoot average of 3/4 moa, I'll shoot a 1/2 moa group then the next one is 1 moa.
The limits to shooting moa are all on the shooter, most accurate guns with a proven load will easily do it, always comes down to the nut behind the wheel. The more field conditions you get the tougher it is to do.
Man those guys were shooting some recoil there too. No thanks.
I would take that challenge if I was at a range with my ruger grendel and hornady black and if it were 3 shots I'd 90% expect to collect 50 bucks but 5 shot consistency he would likely keep his money 90%.
if had my old tikka varmint .204 back (ol' painless
) with the federal factory 39gr blitzkings and 6.5-20 leupold, i would collect that 50 bucks easy, Was not hard to shoot 1" groups at 250 with it. I think I would have outshot quite a few of those guys with my latest ultralight grendel with the green dot on it lol...
Last edited:
Could it be a manual for a regular Weatherby Vanguard that shiped with all of them?
Theres no more sub most version cause they all have the guarantee now.
If at the end of the day a rifle is capable of under 1 minute accuracy (no word on what percentage of the time although as stated people shooting it is not a machine rest) then they've delivered.
What grown ass adults think it means is their problem.
This ain't rocket surgety
I find that guy hard to watch as well. Gavin from ultimate reloader is another I find hard to watch. Not that he has bad content or anything, he's just so mind numbingly boring to listen to.
Anyhow, I haven't experienced many normal hunting rifles that will consistently do sub MOA with factory ammo. They exist, but even then you can't just throw any ammo in them and expect it to be sub MOA. I have several that will easily do it with handloads, and one that'll do 1/2 to 5/8 MOA. Handloading is really a different story though.
I bought an Antler Arms 7 PRC recently and they claim it'll do 3 shot 1/2 MOA with Hornady Precision Hunter (target included). I haven't put enough rounds through it yet to break it in and verify that claim, but it does seem to be very accurate so far.
Anyhow, I haven't experienced many normal hunting rifles that will consistently do sub MOA with factory ammo. They exist, but even then you can't just throw any ammo in them and expect it to be sub MOA. I have several that will easily do it with handloads, and one that'll do 1/2 to 5/8 MOA. Handloading is really a different story though.
I bought an Antler Arms 7 PRC recently and they claim it'll do 3 shot 1/2 MOA with Hornady Precision Hunter (target included). I haven't put enough rounds through it yet to break it in and verify that claim, but it does seem to be very accurate so far.
Absoutely believe it.
And besides all the other flaws which have been pointed out, this video is made by a guy who does reviews that portray 3 shot groups (prettu sure, although saw some 4 as well) as somehow meaningful in terms of what a rifle does himself lol
A little off topic, but that’s why I’ve never owned a Tavor. Klunk was my neighbour for years - anybody that’s been on the site for a while might know the name. He got a Tavor when they first became available. Couldn’t wait to shoot it. We spent an afternoon struggling to get under 3” with that thing - no matter what ammo we used. One of the few times I saw Klunk really frustrated and disappointed in a firearm.
As to naming your kid Ruger - I agree.
I got twisted around for quite a while when I first got into guns years ago. I couldn't understand why folks I met at the range were getting these stunning groups with their fairly average rifles while I was struggling to do so. A more senior shooter then told me to ask about the details.
1. How many shots fired
2. Did they discount flyers
3. Were they sure of the distance shot
4. Were these groups part of a larger group
5. Did they use a ruler to measure or just estimate group size
6. Did they even know how to measure group size
7. And the big one - Were they able to replicate this feat on a continuous basis or was it only once achieved.
It took awhile before I realized that shot groups are the modern equivalent of fish stories. Certainly a lot of embellishment without much pertinent details. Now I just laugh.
1. How many shots fired
2. Did they discount flyers
3. Were they sure of the distance shot
4. Were these groups part of a larger group
5. Did they use a ruler to measure or just estimate group size
6. Did they even know how to measure group size
7. And the big one - Were they able to replicate this feat on a continuous basis or was it only once achieved.
It took awhile before I realized that shot groups are the modern equivalent of fish stories. Certainly a lot of embellishment without much pertinent details. Now I just laugh.
tavor has never been sold as a sniper rifle: it does what it should do in close combat areas and getting out from a vehicle fast that is why any red dot or equivalent are better optics on it ...
The guys delivery is...unenteraining.
He's not wrong though: it's been 20 years at least that everyone I meet has an MOA hunting rifle.
All my hunting rifles are better than MOA capable with 3 shots. All are custom barreled.
I've owned few rifles capable of consistent 5 shot sub MOA with hunting bullets. Only one was factory (bedded though) and I miss that .270 ��
He's not wrong though: it's been 20 years at least that everyone I meet has an MOA hunting rifle.
All my hunting rifles are better than MOA capable with 3 shots. All are custom barreled.
I've owned few rifles capable of consistent 5 shot sub MOA with hunting bullets. Only one was factory (bedded though) and I miss that .270 ��
