The 1 MOA Hoax: How manufacturers have confused shooters
- Thread starter Gatehouse
- Start date
This.
The information relayed in the video is pretty spot on. I suspect most commenting haven’t watched it though.
If you are wanting to comment, take the time to watch it.
Think we'll both need it.
No, thanks.
But am I wrong when I say the problem is people not understanding that "capable" of it doesn't mean a rifle is always going to be sub moa for them? Doesn't seem to me there's any sort of hoax or marketing crookedness going on at all lol.
Hunting rifles are definitely also becoming more accurate. They may have many attributes people don't like, but they do have this one.
If someone doesn't understand what a manufacturer is telling them, well...
Last edited:
Then what did it say
Me too on all of the above.
Also, for entertainment, Who_tee_who is fun
Trying not to sound like a douche so I'll just leave it at I am not a fan of the Backfire crew.
Then what did it say
Me too on all of the above.
Also, for entertainment, Who_tee_who is fun
Trying not to sound like a douche so I'll just leave it at I am not a fan of the Backfire crew.
Oh yes, Who-Tee-Who as well I Like, good old country boy.
People should jsut watch the video if they are interested in the topic of manufacturers accuracy guarantees. It's only 13 min long and the guy doesn't talk too fast so easy to run it at 1.25 or 1.5 speed to shorten it up.
I found it interesting the criteria and conditions that they put on their accuracy claims and also interesting was the cost involved with sending in what you feel is a poor performing rifle.
The guy for sure is a bit nerdy and i don't watch all his videos but sometimes I stumble on one with a topic I haven't really seen covered before. (like this one)
I found it interesting the criteria and conditions that they put on their accuracy claims and also interesting was the cost involved with sending in what you feel is a poor performing rifle.
The guy for sure is a bit nerdy and i don't watch all his videos but sometimes I stumble on one with a topic I haven't really seen covered before. (like this one)
Interesting to see the charges for examing rifles! Guess it takes time and it must help not get 80 rifles in the mail ever day lol.
Otherwise pretty much exactly "it means its capable of a sub 1" group of some amount of shots with at least 1 kinda ammo" and nothing about doing so every or even most of the time, yeah.
Like Conor_90 said at the beginning of this thread, people not shooting the 1 MOA 5 shot group does not mean the rifle cannot. Short of a machine rest we just don't know.
Its more eye opening as to how well people shoot their rifles...or not lol
Otherwise pretty much exactly "it means its capable of a sub 1" group of some amount of shots with at least 1 kinda ammo" and nothing about doing so every or even most of the time, yeah.
Like Conor_90 said at the beginning of this thread, people not shooting the 1 MOA 5 shot group does not mean the rifle cannot. Short of a machine rest we just don't know.
Its more eye opening as to how well people shoot their rifles...or not lol
I think that's another aspect of the "guarantee" if the rifle is sub MOA in a machine rest, when talking about hunting rifles, which is what he is talking about. Is a machine rest sub MOA guarantee worth anything if a hunter using a rifle that is considerably lighter than a target rifle cannot make a sub MOA group despite using a good rest and good technique? I'm not talking about a box of ammo a year hunter that uses a sand bag or some improvised rest and no rear bag can't shoot a MOA group, either!
In order to find out if a rifle is truly capable of achieving 1 MOA status you have to be prepared to spend some money. With the rising cost of quality ammo, this for many folks is hard to justify except for the truly obsessive who have just got to know.
At one time 5 shots was the accepted standard. This was generally thought to be a sufficient sample size (3 was not considered a sufficient sample). This would certainly give one an indication that a particular brand of ammo was one your rifle liked. (some gun writers thought 10 shots in a group was even more definitive).
Secondly more than one group (maybe up to 5 different shot groups) was generally thought to be a very good indication of group potential and that you didn't just get lucky with the first group. In other words repeatability was considered to be very important.
Finally various brands of quality ammo along with various weights were tested using the above criteria. As you can see this can easily run into a few hundred dollars to do it right and most casual shooters cannot or don't want to afford the cost so we now have the casual shooter who shoots one group of three which is a tiny sample and prone to erroneous judgement and who may or may not decide to discount the flyer and then declare to all that his hunting rifle is truly an MOA rifle.
Sadly the high cost of ammo has brought us this state. IMHO
Gun manufacturers have jumped on this bandwagon and have promised their customers a rifle which will do at least 1 MOA. With their resources, finding a brand of ammo which will generate at least one target with a 3 round MOA group is a fairly safe bet. We as consumers should not be satisfied with this. It's smoke and mirrors.
At one time 5 shots was the accepted standard. This was generally thought to be a sufficient sample size (3 was not considered a sufficient sample). This would certainly give one an indication that a particular brand of ammo was one your rifle liked. (some gun writers thought 10 shots in a group was even more definitive).
Secondly more than one group (maybe up to 5 different shot groups) was generally thought to be a very good indication of group potential and that you didn't just get lucky with the first group. In other words repeatability was considered to be very important.
Finally various brands of quality ammo along with various weights were tested using the above criteria. As you can see this can easily run into a few hundred dollars to do it right and most casual shooters cannot or don't want to afford the cost so we now have the casual shooter who shoots one group of three which is a tiny sample and prone to erroneous judgement and who may or may not decide to discount the flyer and then declare to all that his hunting rifle is truly an MOA rifle.
Sadly the high cost of ammo has brought us this state. IMHO
Gun manufacturers have jumped on this bandwagon and have promised their customers a rifle which will do at least 1 MOA. With their resources, finding a brand of ammo which will generate at least one target with a 3 round MOA group is a fairly safe bet. We as consumers should not be satisfied with this. It's smoke and mirrors.
Last edited:
