Lmt 308

800m shooting is a bit different than 100m shooting.

A weapon that shoots sub MOA at 100 does not necessarily mean it will shoot submoa at 800.

A shooter that can shoot paper patch at 100 does not mean he/she can shoot fig12 at 800, or vice versa.

The fact the group split horizontally most likely has something to do with inconsistent sight picture or variation in the velocity of the ammo. Just saying.....
 
Question: Questar has 2 variants of the LMT 308. One has a SS barrel and other is chrome lined....both 16". Any thoughts/comments on one vs. the other? I'm looking to buy my first AR and this LMT308 is definitely something I'm interested in.
 
armorman said:
Question: Questar has 2 variants of the LMT 308. One has a SS barrel and other is chrome lined....both 16". Any thoughts/comments on one vs. the other? I'm looking to buy my first AR and this LMT308 is definitely something I'm interested in.
Click to expand...

armorman I personally don't own an LMT MWS/.308 AR/AR10. I do however own an LMT 10.5 barrel that shoots 5.56/.223. I highly suggest you getting the .223 AR first before moving up to the LMT MWS.

The LMT MWS is one HELL of a gun and perhaps too much gun for your first AR as many have stated.

And yes you're currently one step in the right direction, the LMT AR-15's that Questar sells is.... how shall I say it..... just awesome. I would definitely suggest an LMT AR-15 but if you are persistant on the MWS, just go for it.

As for the groupings that people are talking about, the British basically needed an effective rifle against threats/insurgents that were beyond 500 yards. The MWS was their answer and even though it's not accurate for a head shot at 800 yards, the whole point of full metal jacketed .308 is just make the bad guy lay down with a single body shot of a 7.62X51.

Have fun and whatever choice you make armorman, we support you!
 
EDX2308 said:
armorman I personally don't own an LMT MWS/.308 AR/AR10. I do however own an LMT 10.5 barrel that shoots 5.56/.223. I highly suggest you getting the .223 AR first before moving up to the LMT MWS.

The LMT MWS is one HELL of a gun and perhaps too much gun for your first AR as many have stated.

And yes you're currently one step in the right direction, the LMT AR-15's that Questar sells is.... how shall I say it..... just awesome. I would definitely suggest an LMT AR-15 but if you are persistant on the MWS, just go for it.

As for the groupings that people are talking about, the British basically needed an effective rifle against threats/insurgents that were beyond 500 yards. The MWS was their answer and even though it's not accurate for a head shot at 800 yards, the whole point of full metal jacketed .308 is just make the bad guy lay down with a single body shot of a 7.62X51.

Have fun and whatever choice you make armorman, we support you!
Click to expand...

X2 on this.

You'll also shoot the .223 much more than the .308 (from a cost of ammo perspective). Questar still has some nice LMT's at great prices.
 
Questar said:
Scott and I have both shot repeated sub-moa groups at 100 with the 16" MWS... time after time... target after target. If as you say that's "most part luck" then I guess we should be buying lottery tickets.
Click to expand...

As have I - 5 round groups benched - but that isn't consistant.


Questar said:
then how is it that we are doing it repeatedly and consistently?
Click to expand...
Well, based on your own target you we not consistant were you?

Questar said:
I have also had a number of our customers who purchased rifles report back that they are getting sub-moa results from theirs as well... are you saying they are just lucky too?
Click to expand...

Your customers are liars and braggarts - me included;)

'Can get sub moa groups' is a lot different from 'I am consistantly getting sub moa groups'

Questar said:
Here is a testing target Scott and I shot back in May 2010... 3 x 5 shot groups with my MK11 MOD1 Knights, 3 x 5 shot groups with the LMT MWS 308 16" standard barrel, 2 x 5 shot groups with a 20" DPMS 308. Both the Knights and the LMT shot 1 group of @ 1moa and 2 groups sub-moa...

Mark
Click to expand...

Well, hell if I took half the group that I posted above it would be sub moa too...:p


greentips said:
800m shooting is a bit different than 100m shooting.

A weapon that shoots sub MOA at 100 does not necessarily mean it will shoot submoa at 800.

A shooter that can shoot paper patch at 100 does not mean he/she can shoot fig12 at 800, or vice versa.

The fact the group split horizontally most likely has something to do with inconsistent sight picture or variation in the velocity of the ammo. Just saying.....
Click to expand...

You are right for alot of that - however I walked it back from 100 to that point and the consistancy was more or less the same.
Sure, they can do better at 100m, but not consistantly and not with a full 10 rounds or more used in the group.
That particular ammunition used does quite well in my TRG, and was sub moa out of the LMT at 100m (for 5 rounds). The velocity spread I think had nothing to do with it or the other similar groups I fired that day with it based on the fact the TRG was along for the ride for comparison.
 
#### Proenneke said:
No offence to beltfed, but I find it funny that he can tease spectacular groups out of his Tavor ( A gun I can't seem to master to save my life), but can not do the same with his MWS.
Click to expand...

You are more than welcome to come down for a day of shooting at Homestead if you would like to put any of my observations to the test - I made a blanket statement with regard to the MWS, but at the end of the day I've only shot mine. It could very well be that others perform better - but I would doubt they are doing that much better to effectively halve their groups.
 
Sub moa group on these type of rifle are easy, I was out in spruce grove with KingGeorge169 last year winter with the HK MR308 the only scope I has available was the 10x fix super Sniper at 100 meter the group was dime size with 5 round, these are FNM 147grain FMJ. So I do believe when guy said that they can get sub moa at 100meter consistLy. I am looking forward in get another ar10 whether is a LMT or Another HK.
 
beltfed said:
...
'Can get sub moa groups' is a lot different from 'I am consistantly getting sub moa groups'
Click to expand...

And there you have it... what you are really saying is that YOU can't consistantly shoot your gun and get MOA or sub-MOA results. That is not the same thing as saying that THE GUN is not capable of consistently shooting sub-MOA groups.

I personally can't shoot sub-MOA groups every time I shoot (not with any gun)... I just don't have that capability anymore. But that has nothing to do with the rifle being used it has to do with a measure of MY ability. When we talk about a rifle being a sub-MOA rifle, we are saying that the hardware itself is capable of consitently shooting sub-MOA size groups with the right ammunition AND without the external effects of the shooter... remove the shooter from the equation. When we test the guns we use a rest to isolate the gun as much as possible and to make each and ever shot as repeatable as we possibly can... we try as much as possible to eliminate any outside influence from the shooter (movement, breathing, flinching, etc.). That way we get a true and accurate measure of what the rifle itself is capable of doing. That is what matters... because if the 'best' the rifle can do is (for example) 4 MOA then no matter how good the shooter is he'll never get better than 4 MOA results (usually worse because he can't hold perfect ever time).

Ammunition will also play a huge factor... different ammo will get different results (group sizes), each rifle will tend to have a specific ammunition (bullet weight, type, brand, etc.) that it likes best and that produces the best results for that rifle (for that barrel)... just because brand 'X' works well in one rifle doesn't mean it's the best performing ammo for another brand of rifle or even for the same brand of rifle... it's really a situation of each barrel having it's own preferences and that's why we will normally test fire the guns using 3 or more brands of ammo to see which gets us the best results.

Mark
 
The real question is, if you eliminate the shooter entirely and lock the gun down to a bench, and then shoot 100 rounds and the same spot, how big will the hole in the paper be?

If the hole is going to be about an inch across, no matter how many rounds you fire at that spot, THEN you have a 1 MOA gun.

If it's going to be 2.5 inches across, then while you may get a lot of 1 moa 3 or 5 shot groups, that is not really a 1 MOA gun. The small groups are really just lucky coincidences.

I have played with a single MWS and found it pretty accurate but don't have enough time behind it to give an opinion on whether it really is a 1 MOA machine or not.
 
misanthropist said:
The real question is, if you eliminate the shooter entirely and lock the gun down to a bench, and then shoot 100 rounds and the same spot, how big will the hole in the paper be?

If the hole is going to be about an inch across, no matter how many rounds you fire at that spot, THEN you have a 1 MOA gun.

If it's going to be 2.5 inches across, then while you may get a lot of 1 moa 3 or 5 shot groups, that is not really a 1 MOA gun. The small groups are really just lucky coincidences.

I have played with a single MWS and found it pretty accurate but don't have enough time behind it to give an opinion on whether it really is a 1 MOA machine or not.
Click to expand...

100% agree, but with one small addition... the ammo also needs to be moa capable. The more variation in the ammo (pressure, bullet weight variations, etc.) the more variation in the performance of that ammo and the bigger the group sizes. It takes high quality, consistent ammo to shoot consistent tight groups. It doesn't take much variation (a slight increase in powder measure, slight variation in bullet weight or depth of seating or crimp) to result in a difference in pressure and thus a 'flyer' that ruins the group size. This is not the fault of the rifle or the shooter.

Mark
 
greentips said:
As far as I see here, 10 rounds on the torso. That is an effective wpn at 800m if you know what you are doing.
Click to expand...

From what I've read, the British Army trial included LMT 308, HK 417 and SCAR-H.
They rifles were shot standard British Army 149gr FMJ. The rifles had to be effective at up to 900m (23" torso targets).
This means that the rifle has to be a true 2 MOA rifle at 1000 yards.
Therefore the LMT 308 has to be a true 1.5 or better MOA rifle at 100 yards with FMJ ammo.


Interestingly, the British Army is only interested in shooting standard issue FMJ ammo (sounds like they're fighting "real" wars!)

Alex
 
I shot the 16"Stainless barrel MWSin Singapore with their SASS trial. It was a decent shooting gun, and with good ammo was able to do subMOA work.

We won that trial, but I would not say the MWS gun with a good barrel is a inaccurate system. I agree with some of Mark's comments above. The accuracy equation has a lot of variables, gun, ammo, scope, shooter, atmospherics, mount, position etc.

However with an AR style gun, its hard to find one that won't shoot, it most often the nut behind the bolt.
 
AlexF said:
Interestingly, the British Army is only interested in shooting standard issue FMJ ammo (sounds like they're fighting "real" wars!)

Alex
Click to expand...

The UOR rated the guns using Radway Green 149gr because that was what was in system at the time and easiest to source (the "Urgent" part).

I believe the Brits are adopting a new match 7.62x51, though.
 
Questar said:
And there you have it... what you are really saying is that YOU can't consistantly shoot your gun and get MOA or sub-MOA results. That is not the same thing as saying that THE GUN is not capable of consistently shooting sub-MOA groups.

I personally can't shoot sub-MOA groups every time I shoot (not with any gun)... I just don't have that capability anymore. But that has nothing to do with the rifle being used it has to do with a measure of MY ability. When we talk about a rifle being a sub-MOA rifle, we are saying that the hardware itself is capable of consitently shooting sub-MOA size groups with the right ammunition AND without the external effects of the shooter... remove the shooter from the equation. When we test the guns we use a rest to isolate the gun as much as possible and to make each and ever shot as repeatable as we possibly can... we try as much as possible to eliminate any outside influence from the shooter (movement, breathing, flinching, etc.). That way we get a true and accurate measure of what the rifle itself is capable of doing. That is what matters... because if the 'best' the rifle can do is (for example) 4 MOA then no matter how good the shooter is he'll never get better than 4 MOA results (usually worse because he can't hold perfect ever time).

Ammunition will also play a huge factor... different ammo will get different results (group sizes), each rifle will tend to have a specific ammunition (bullet weight, type, brand, etc.) that it likes best and that produces the best results for that rifle (for that barrel)... just because brand 'X' works well in one rifle doesn't mean it's the best performing ammo for another brand of rifle or even for the same brand of rifle... it's really a situation of each barrel having it's own preferences and that's why we will normally test fire the guns using 3 or more brands of ammo to see which gets us the best results.

Mark
Click to expand...

While I agree with your summary of mechanical accuracy and the rest of the equation, we'll have to agree to disagree on the particular capabilities of the MWS rifle with a 16" C/L bore. They are very decent rifles and capable of very good accuracy, especially for the price point but consistant moa or sub moa performers they are not (mechanical accuracy or otherwise). As always, jmho - ymmv.
 
beltfed said:
While I agree with your summary of mechanical accuracy and the rest of the equation, we'll have to agree to disagree on the particular capabilities of the MWS rifle with a 16" C/L bore. They are very decent rifles and capable of very good accuracy, especially for the price point but consistant moa or sub moa performers they are not (mechanical accuracy or otherwise). As always, jmho - ymmv.
Click to expand...

There are a LOT of shooters in the US getting consistent sub moa groups with every variation of the MWS.
 
Questar said:
100% agree, but with one small addition... the ammo also needs to be moa capable. The more variation in the ammo (pressure, bullet weight variations, etc.) the more variation in the performance of that ammo and the bigger the group sizes. It takes high quality, consistent ammo to shoot consistent tight groups. It doesn't take much variation (a slight increase in powder measure, slight variation in bullet weight or depth of seating or crimp) to result in a difference in pressure and thus a 'flyer' that ruins the group size. This is not the fault of the rifle or the shooter.

Mark
Click to expand...

Definitely true, of course.
 
EDX2308 said:
As for the groupings that people are talking about, the British basically needed an effective rifle against threats/insurgents that were beyond 500 yards. The MWS was their answer and even though it's not accurate for a head shot at 800 yards, the whole point of full metal jacketed .308 is just make the bad guy lay down with a single body shot of a 7.62X51.
Click to expand...

Even if a square flat range is your real world no rifle is accurate enough to snap shoot into an 8" circle at 800m. A half moa rifle would still require you to constantly read and track wind to a half moa.
Not happening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom