Is The Stated MOA Of Your Rifle Like A Good Fish Story?

Its no different than the advertised milage that your new vehicle should get...in a control enviroment it will get as advertised otherwise its no better than the the operator!
My new chevy truck gets pretty close to to what the sticker claimes it will...my wife gets in and its not even close to what it should be!

No different with firearms...alot depends on the operator.
 
I once had a young fellow tell me he could hit a toonie at 700yds with his 300 ultra mag. When I asked him to prove it to me he had to come up with all kinds of excuses. I myself will not keep around a bolt action rifle that is not capable of .75" group at 100yds after I have finished developing loads for it.
 
There was a guy at the range fiddling around with his Norinco M14. I mentioned that I had one as well. Asked him what sort of accuracy he was getting, and he told me that it consistently shot less than 0.5" groups at 100 yards, and with cheap surplus ammo to boot. That said, I never saw him fire a shot out of it the whole time I remained at the range. I suspect he didn't want me to see how it actually shot. I can't fathom why he would make such a ridiculous statement. I'd be surprised if he could do better than a 5 shot 1.5" group with that ammo he had.
 
I own and shoot a fair number of rifles. Some straight factory and a few have been tweaked a bit or otherwise "tuned" up. Only one shoots at or near MOA consistently and that's an off the shelf Savage in 7mm 08. Most are 1.25 to even 2 MOA rilfes and it doesn't bother me one bit for their intended purpose, hunting.

I actually have the luxury of being involved in full time firearms instruction and get to shoot everyday if I so desire. I shoot "work" rifles that are designed for a specific purpose (that being accuracy) and with them I can generally shoot to the rifles potential. In my experience very few people, and not nearly as many rifles, are capable of the accuracy they claim. I did shot a friends new Weatherby Vangauard today and it managed 1.25 to 1.50 MOA which I considered impressive and just fine for what he has planned for it.

In my experience, don't believe it unless you see it for yourself.
 
cam1936 said:
Also, people should be shooting 5 round groups, not 3. If your shots walk when the barrel heats up than wait for it to cool before shooting.
Click to expand...

Five shot groups, Yes.
Wait for the barrel to cool? NO.
A rifle that walks bullets as the barrel heats, is badly in need of a bedding job.
If you can do it yourself, do it.
If you can't, take it to someone who can.
 
I prefer the term MOA capable. Many guns can pattern 3 or 5 shot MOA groups, just not consistantly.

Out of all my rifles I would say only 6 are true MOA capable or better rifles, and only 2 of can be 3/4 MOA rifles on a consistant basis.
 
So I says to buddy "Hey look at this" Then I take 3 rounds of hand loads and I shoot a group under .5" Then I take a different hand load and shoot a 3 shot group of about .8" then I take 3 rounds of cheapo Winchester ammo and shoot a goup easily under 1". All consecutive and all on the same target. Am I full of Sh1t when I say my stock Tikka shoots sub MOA???? I can't do it every day, but I would say it is an MOA gun. I have only grouped it out to 300 yards twice with my best load and it shot a 3 shot group of 1.2" and one at 2.25".

How many rounds and how many groups does it take? There must be a standard of some kind.

G
 
Well, just to add my 2 cents, I think that sub-MOA rifles are more commonly available today than they were 30-some years ago when I started shooting. Part of the difference lies in the greater accuracy potential of modern machining and tooling, and another part lies in the quality of the ammunition we have available today. For certain, factory ammo is vastly better in quality now -- and I can assure you that it was no great feat for even yours truly as a 14-year old kid to crank out handloads that ran circles around factory fodder. These days, it's not so easy to do that. Not impossible, for sure -- but there's plenty of factory ammo that will shoot sub-minute in a quality barrel attached to a quality rifle.

Now, is sub-MOA terribly common in a sporter weight rifle? It may not be the statistical norm, but the average is certainly closer to 1 MOA than to 2 MOA if it's properly bedded and care is taken in the reloading. But look at what we have to work with today -- much more uniform bullet jackets, premium quality seating dies that can reduce run-out to a couple thou even in non-uniformed brass (which, by the way, is generally more uniform than it used to be), and a vast array of powders. It would be a real eye-opener for some to look back at the Sierra, Speer or Hornady manuals from the late 70's/early 80's, and realize how many more variables we have to play with these days. And let's not forget the quality of the glass we have now, too. It's simply amazing, for example, how groups tend to shrink on any rifle when you mount a Nightforce or something similar on top of it with max magnification north of 20x...

As I think about the bolt action rifles in my rack at the present time, there are 3 heavy barrel target rifles -- there's a stock Rem 700 VS that averages (5 shot groups) around 1.25 MOA. Then there's a trued Rem 700 with a Hart barrel that averages well under 0.5 MOA, and has produced many groups in the 2's, and even a few in the 1's. And then there's also a PGW Coyote that shoots around 0.6 MOA. Those really are the results I get, and they're reproduceable.

When it comes to sporter weight hunting rifles... Well, things change a bit. Of the several I own, there are 12 that I shoot regularly enough to be truly familiar with. The Rem Model 7, CZ 527 (x2), Weatherby Vanguard, S&W 1500, Ruger 77 and Ruger RSM are NOT sub-MOA rifles. The average here is closer to 2 MOA than it is to 1. All but one of them them, however, will keep the shots inside 2 MOA with their favourite handloads.

At the same time, however, the Tikka T3 and the HS Precision PHR will average right around 1 MOA very consistently.

And then there's the Rem 700 BDL, Sako A1, and Browning BBR (with a Lilja barrel) that absolutely shoot sub-MOA very, very consistently.

So what is that -- of the sporting weight rifles that I use most often, 25% of them are honestly sub-MOA rifles.

I don't know what the norm is these days, but I think that's probably fairly representative of what's out there. In a nutshell, I think it's reasonable to lust after a 1 MOA sporter, presuming you're willing to buy quality in the first place and are prepared to go through a few before finding one that's a keeper. In a heavy barrel, however, I think it's reasonable to expect sub-MOA performance as a must-have.

OK, that was probably more than 2 cents... ;)
 
People are goofs. It's not hard to tell who shoots and who talks. That being said if my bolt guns can't shoot MOA consistently they find other homes. If you spend the time to work up loads and have optics that are the best you can afford there shouldn't be any reason you can't get the newer factory guns MOA capable. If your gun does MOA with a 59$ tasco and crapy amo your good to go budy:)
 
I own one that is/was a true sub MOA rifle, up to 250 yds anyway ( a Voere action douglass barrel combo currently in need of rust repair and barrel replacement as I think I burnt out the barrel) and another that is close to an MOA rifle at 100 yds, a Rem Model 7 in 7mm 08. I have owned MANY rifles, now wishing I had kept them all, and those are the only two that I can say shoot well enough to use in a sentence with the term MOA.

I have met MANY people that in a coffee shop claim to shoot 4" groups at 700 yds all day long, however not one of them has fired more than 20 rounds in 10 years out of their Lee Enfield 303 with original military sights from WW1.


I do have a .22 or two that are well under MOA, but not factory either....lol
 
While past performance is a predictor of future performance, it is not certain. I see these guys at the range sighting in their rifles with a stand that is so high tech that the rifle is held perfectly still, and they shoot a good group. Based on this experience of accuracy they go hunting. OK, Even if the rifle did make a sub moa group, there is still no reason to trust them to shoot a decent group without the stand.
 
I had a friend help me develop a load for my new hunting rifle.... when we were eventually done, I shot a 6 round group of just under an inch at 100 yds off bags. I believe I can hold that group pretty consistently at the bench. And I think a better shooter than me would be able to get that group down some more.

In the field.... a totally different story of course!
But it's always nice to know what your rifle can do.
 
Well I couldn't hit a bull's ass with a shovel if I was tied to his tail.

I also am confused by this MOA talk/gloating.

It would seem to me this is like IBO speeds for bows, to the limits of the equipment in controlled conditions for a limited time and only the premium performance is reported.

On my 700 with a Krieger and tuned action I saw 5 shot groups as high as 2.5" when load developing.

Just now am I starting to get 10 shot groups under MOA , and that is after a lot of shooting, is it a sub-MOA rifle consistently , maybe/maybe not, in my hands well that is to be debated.

Like others have stated only the best days/groupings are talked about or reported.

Fish story, not at all if you saw my excel spread sheet of my shooting!!(it humbles me greatly) :eek: :redface:
 
Meh, I'm positive my rifle shoots much better than I do. There's been times when I fire a few off that felt right and then I see something to be proud of on the paper but more often than not ill fire a group where a few feel right, a few that that I know I buggered up and one that's questionable. In those cases I'll often see what I expected, 2 or 3 bundled up here and 2 or 3 all over the place.
I'm positive my rifle is better than sub moa, but I know the problem is me. The real hard part is trying to find a superb load that lets me measure my skill progression... I mean how do you do that? It's the chicken and the egg....
 
During my multiple years of load development/reloading and shooting at the range, all of my rifles shot sub-moa. Once the load had been established I found it most difficult to consistantly shoot sub-moa with that load. I know that the firearm is capable all of the time to shoot sub-moa, however; I'm not.

What I'm trying to explain is that some days I can settle in on the shooting bags (be patience, control breathing, concentrate, relaxed). There are other factors that play into it, such as, environmental factors and distractons. Wind, sun in eyes, rain, poor lighting and then there are distractions from other shooters at the range. Some days I cannot fit all of the above when on the shooting bags........... hence no sub-moa. Overall, it depends on the shooters present state of mind, body and the environment at the time.

The person or persons who can answer the moa or sub-moa phenomenon are the target shooter geeks.
 
What I hate the most is when you lend you gun to someone that is a good shooter. and your MOA gun becomes a Sub MOA gun....

Steamwhistle here on CGN get 1/2 inch groups with my Savage 10-FCPK all day long.... I can only get 3/4 inch if im lucky....

So Its safe to say I need more practice.... But Now thanks to some friendly PM's im starting to keep track of my groups so I can average out all my Range trip over a year to determine what my riffles can do, and not only post my 1/2 inch groups when I get them... lol...
 
What's it for? A varmint rifle by definition needs to be capable of producing tight groups of long strings if its going to perform as required on yon prairie dog town. But demanding MOA from a big game rifle reminds me of the man who measures his firewood with a micrometer then cuts with a chain saw. He isn't doing something that that benefits from such a high a degree of accuracy. While there is nothing wrong with a rifle that will produce MOA or sub MOA groups, it is after all a confidence builder. But when accuracy is taken out of context, the quest for unexploitable accuracy can lead to bad decision making. Thus we find big game hunters with big magnification scopes with huge objectives mounted high to0 clear their bull barrel equipped rifles, that are undoubtedly loaded with match bullets, or equally bad, Walt Berger's idea of a game bullet. When they jump a moose at 40 yards, they aren't nearly as likely to put meat in the freezer as the fellow packing a worn out iron sighted .303 Savage that's been handed down through 5 generations.

Now I'm as much as a rifle nut as the next guy, and I'll admit to feeling pretty good when one of my big game rifles prints a tiny little group on some distant target, but that ain't what its for. My rifle must be be able to hit a large target, with a single shot, across the range I decide to shoot from. If I muff that shot, it doesn't much matter how tight that rifle groups subsequent shots on paper. I know the purpose of the scope is to help me see my target, but if all I can make out though the narrow field of view of the high powered glass is a patch of hide, and more likely just a confusing mass of willows, it doesn't provide what I need, and can achieve, with a 2X glass. How the rifle carries after 10 hours on the trail, is more important than how it feels when I heft it on my way out the door. My bullet's terminal performance through wet hair, thick hide, dense muscle, heavy bone and viscera is far more important to the outcome then if the dimensional center from its J-4 jacket exactly matches its center of gravity, or if the mechanical margin for error is a half inch on either side of my intended point of impact per 100 yards of range.

Towsend Whelen is often quoted as saying that only accurate rifles are interesting. But what he was talking about was practical as opposed to theoretical accuracy. As a career army officer who spent much of his life at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds, his interest was primarily the accuracy necessary to hit a human sized target on the battlefield, and his measure for rifle and/or ammunition was 20 shot strings fired at 300 yards from the issue rifle, be it a Krag, an 03 Springfield, an M-1, or an M-14. He was at this stuff for a very long time, and over the years developed an enviable depth of knowledge that was unobtainable by recreational shooters. Unfortunately today the mantra of "Only Accurate rifles are interesting!" has been hopelessly taken out of context.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom