This was not a “test”. A test is expected to produce results. I shot 4 rifles with 10 different loads of ammo. Only one 10 shot group per rifle/ammo combination. In order to have a “result” I would have to shoot at least 5 groups out of each rifle with each load. And that “result” would only indicate that rifle A did better than rifle B. If we wanted to see if rifle Brand A is better than rifle brand B, then I would want to shoot 5 samples of each rifle.
I have done a lot of testing over the years, including professionally in a proper lab setting. In those days my boss would usually look at my results (which I though proved something) and he would say “Not statically significant”. In other words, not enough tests to be a reliable indicator of anything.
I scoured my ammo shelves and collected all the boxes of ammo with at least 40 rounds in them, so I could shoot 4rifles with 10 shots each. Some boxes were ammo I made 20 years ago. Glad for the opportunity to use it up. About 350 rounds got fired.
I took my wife’s 223/5.56 target rifle and put a 20X scope on it. It is a Sportco with a McLennan 1:7 barrel with a Wylde chamber, well suited to long match bullets and 5.56 military ball. This rifle was intended to disclose ammo that was of poor quality. I think it worked. The Norinco Yellow Box grouped over 2 inches and the 60gr VMax grouped 0.90”
The other 3 rifles are fairly similar M4 style AR-15s.
The two NEAs are new production. A 14.5” and a 10.5”. Both have Rock River Match triggers (sweet) and were topped with a 20X target scope. My Norinco 14.5” is 2 years old. It has been upgraded with a float tube and a Rock River trigger, so mechanically is similar to the NEA set-up. It was equipped with the same make 20X target scope.
The weather this morning sucked. It was -2 and windy. The range is well bermed, so the wind was not a factor in grouping, but sure made it miserable shooting.
I put up sheets of paper at 100 yards and used target patches as aiming marks. With a 20X scope it is easy to aim at one corner of a patch and get a precise aiming mark.
I kept a sketch of the target and noted which rifle and load was shot at each patch. When I got home (and thawed out) I labeled each group and measured the extreme spread.
The single shot target rifle was slow to shoot, so I did not shoot all ammo samples in it. The three M4s all felt remarkably similar. They had similar stocks and the same triggers.
All the M4s performed perfectly. They fed, fired extracted and ejected just fine. I used 10 shot mags, and took less than a minute to fire the 10 shots.
The only difference I noted was in the gas system. The Norinco puts a lot of gas into the bolt. As a result, full power ammo seems to result in very violent bolt action. If I was going to use this rifle for full power ammo (Service Rifle matches) I would change the buffer, or whatever one does to calm it down. As it happens, I use it for CQB, where I prefer to use mild ammo (we are at 35 yards) to punch holes in the paper. My ammo only has 17 gr of powder in it. The Norinco still throws the brass 15 feet.
The NEA 10.5” will barely eject this mild ammo. It just dribbles out of the rifle. I would not use this ammo for a match. I am sure some rounds would not eject.
The NEA 14.5” carbine won’t even extract this mild ammo. On the other hand, full power ammo felt quite mild. The bolt was not battering the rifle. The 14.5” NEA seems to have the exact same gas system as my 20” Colt.
All rifles shot the 69g match king bullet and the Hornady 60 gr VMax bullet much better than the 62 and 55 gr FMJ bullets. No surprise there. This means the rifles are accurate enough to discriminate bullet quality.
The Hornady 55 gr FMJ shot better than the generic 55 gr bullets I had (Lake City and Serbian.)
When I average the columns of results, the Norinco had the best average group size (about 2.5”), the NEA 10.5” averaged about 2.75” and the NEA 14.5” about 3.00”
I did a similar shoot a few months ago which included the same Sportco rifle for control, my Norinco and a new Dan Defense 16". Results were similar. So far as shooting results are concerned, I don't see a significant difference in these rifles at 100 yards.
Each of them had an outstanding group, indicating that an accuracy load could easily be developed for each. I am sorry I did not have any 75gr match bullets to test.
Conclusion: The M4s all flt the same and shot about the same.
The Norinco is the cheapest - and looks it.
The Norinco Yellow Box ammo is ok for blasting at CQB distances, but not for anything requiring accuracy.
I have done a lot of testing over the years, including professionally in a proper lab setting. In those days my boss would usually look at my results (which I though proved something) and he would say “Not statically significant”. In other words, not enough tests to be a reliable indicator of anything.
I scoured my ammo shelves and collected all the boxes of ammo with at least 40 rounds in them, so I could shoot 4rifles with 10 shots each. Some boxes were ammo I made 20 years ago. Glad for the opportunity to use it up. About 350 rounds got fired.
I took my wife’s 223/5.56 target rifle and put a 20X scope on it. It is a Sportco with a McLennan 1:7 barrel with a Wylde chamber, well suited to long match bullets and 5.56 military ball. This rifle was intended to disclose ammo that was of poor quality. I think it worked. The Norinco Yellow Box grouped over 2 inches and the 60gr VMax grouped 0.90”
The other 3 rifles are fairly similar M4 style AR-15s.
The two NEAs are new production. A 14.5” and a 10.5”. Both have Rock River Match triggers (sweet) and were topped with a 20X target scope. My Norinco 14.5” is 2 years old. It has been upgraded with a float tube and a Rock River trigger, so mechanically is similar to the NEA set-up. It was equipped with the same make 20X target scope.
The weather this morning sucked. It was -2 and windy. The range is well bermed, so the wind was not a factor in grouping, but sure made it miserable shooting.
I put up sheets of paper at 100 yards and used target patches as aiming marks. With a 20X scope it is easy to aim at one corner of a patch and get a precise aiming mark.
I kept a sketch of the target and noted which rifle and load was shot at each patch. When I got home (and thawed out) I labeled each group and measured the extreme spread.
The single shot target rifle was slow to shoot, so I did not shoot all ammo samples in it. The three M4s all felt remarkably similar. They had similar stocks and the same triggers.
All the M4s performed perfectly. They fed, fired extracted and ejected just fine. I used 10 shot mags, and took less than a minute to fire the 10 shots.
The only difference I noted was in the gas system. The Norinco puts a lot of gas into the bolt. As a result, full power ammo seems to result in very violent bolt action. If I was going to use this rifle for full power ammo (Service Rifle matches) I would change the buffer, or whatever one does to calm it down. As it happens, I use it for CQB, where I prefer to use mild ammo (we are at 35 yards) to punch holes in the paper. My ammo only has 17 gr of powder in it. The Norinco still throws the brass 15 feet.
The NEA 10.5” will barely eject this mild ammo. It just dribbles out of the rifle. I would not use this ammo for a match. I am sure some rounds would not eject.
The NEA 14.5” carbine won’t even extract this mild ammo. On the other hand, full power ammo felt quite mild. The bolt was not battering the rifle. The 14.5” NEA seems to have the exact same gas system as my 20” Colt.
All rifles shot the 69g match king bullet and the Hornady 60 gr VMax bullet much better than the 62 and 55 gr FMJ bullets. No surprise there. This means the rifles are accurate enough to discriminate bullet quality.
The Hornady 55 gr FMJ shot better than the generic 55 gr bullets I had (Lake City and Serbian.)
When I average the columns of results, the Norinco had the best average group size (about 2.5”), the NEA 10.5” averaged about 2.75” and the NEA 14.5” about 3.00”
I did a similar shoot a few months ago which included the same Sportco rifle for control, my Norinco and a new Dan Defense 16". Results were similar. So far as shooting results are concerned, I don't see a significant difference in these rifles at 100 yards.
Each of them had an outstanding group, indicating that an accuracy load could easily be developed for each. I am sorry I did not have any 75gr match bullets to test.
Conclusion: The M4s all flt the same and shot about the same.
The Norinco is the cheapest - and looks it.
The Norinco Yellow Box ammo is ok for blasting at CQB distances, but not for anything requiring accuracy.
Last edited:
