Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
1/22/2020 12:12:56 PM
Posted: 1/15/2015 11:17:07 PM EST
I googled this and everytime it turns into a 'i shot a .5 inch group at 100 yards' argument.

I reload, and I know I can fine tune the round to the rifle, but thats not what I'm wanting to know. I started buying American Eagle Xm193 as of late and get it mainly to simply have it; its readily available, no work (reloading) needed and I know its quality ammo. I've been wanting to start practicing with it as well as use it for future carbine classes but wanted to know what to expect out of a 16" carbine instead of thinking the ammo sucks, somethings wrong, I'm 'off' today, etc.

On the average, without a match barrel, 16" carbine, at 50/100 yards, 5 shots, whats to be expected/acceptable?
Link Posted: 1/15/2015 11:19:48 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/15/2015 11:35:20 PM EST
Previous post says it all.

Thank You Molon !!
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 9:26:05 AM EST
On paper, out of several different guns, using Federal XM193 I normally see just over 2 Moa. I am very surprised honestly that the accuracy of so many of those loads was so bad in those tests. It doesn't really square with what I have seen in my own shooting....I fully realize the numbers are within "spec" for the type of ammo but it's sure nothing to write home about.
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 9:49:58 AM EST
50 yards off hand 4 moa one shot per second
50 yards on the bench 1-2 moa 1 shot every 10 seconds
100 yards off hand 5 moa. 2 shot per second
100 yards on the bench 1-2 moa 1 shot every 10 seconds

5 shot groups

If I shoot 62 grain I shave off a half moa or more and a other half using match ammo


Stag m8
Samson EVO
Geiselle S3g
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 11:13:51 AM EST
Most M193 is nominally around 2.5 MOA. Sometimes it's 3 MOA, some days it's 2 MOA. Very rare will it be better than 1.5MOA. Best results for me have been with IMI M193 (currently best value out there too, IMHO). Worst M193 for me has been LC 55 ball boxed by CCI Lawman - just a shotgun with that stuff.

Accuracy is dominated by the quality of the bullet. Cheap bullets will be out of balance and inconsistent weight with non-uniform shapes. They will always shoot poorly no matter what you do. Most 55 ball bullets are crap, and so most M193 shoots poorly. Jacking it up to max velocity/pressure usually doesn't help. Best M193 will be from those who use the best 55 ball bullets, and best 55 ball bullets are made by Hornady and by IMI - that I've seen at least. WIth those you can push 1.5MOA, and sometimes even better.

Link Posted: 1/16/2015 3:25:23 PM EST
Same here. Sometimes I get under 2MOA but typically 2.5 with LC/Federal XM. I have never tried IMI M193. Lately have had good results with Wolf Gold. While not really an M193 clone but the GECO 55fmj has been crazy accurate for me.

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By lazyengineer:
Most M193 is nominally around 2.5 MOA. Sometimes it's 3 MOA, some days it's 2 MOA. Very rare will it be better than 1.5MOA. Best results for me have been with IMI M193 (currently best value out there too, IMHO). Worst M193 for me has been LC 55 ball boxed by CCI Lawman - just a shotgun with that stuff.

Accuracy is dominated by the quality of the bullet. Cheap bullets will be out of balance and inconsistent weight with non-uniform shapes. They will always shoot poorly no matter what you do. Most 55 ball bullets are crap, and so most M193 shoots poorly. Jacking it up to max velocity/pressure usually doesn't help. Best M193 will be from those who use the best 55 ball bullets, and best 55 ball bullets are made by Hornady and by IMI - that I've seen at least. WIth those you can push 1.5MOA, and sometimes even better.

View Quote

Link Posted: 1/18/2015 5:01:19 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/18/2015 7:53:49 PM EST by Molon]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Will:

On paper, out of several different guns, using Federal XM193 I normally see just over 2 Moa. I am very surprised honestly that the accuracy of so many of those loads was so bad in those tests. It doesn't really square with what I have seen in my own shooting....
View Quote


Honestly, it must be because I didn't use a government-profile WASP barrel and that I don't know how to shoot like you do, that the accuracy of so many of those loads was so bad in my tests.


....
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 3:46:58 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/19/2015 3:52:57 PM EST by Will]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Molon:


Honestly, it must be because I didn't use a government-profile WASP barrel and that I don't know how to shoot like you do, that the accuracy of so many of those loads was so bad in my tests.


....
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Molon:
Originally Posted By Will:

On paper, out of several different guns, using Federal XM193 I normally see just over 2 Moa. I am very surprised honestly that the accuracy of so many of those loads was so bad in those tests. It doesn't really square with what I have seen in my own shooting....


Honestly, it must be because I didn't use a government-profile WASP barrel and that I don't know how to shoot like you do, that the accuracy of so many of those loads was so bad in my tests.


....



I wouldn't say that at all, in fact, I didn't. All I said was that I normally see just over 2 MOA out of several different rifles. Lots of folks have different experiences with the same consumer products whether it's a Ford pickup, a pair of Nikes or M193 ammo. I mean, I know, it might be hard to believe that there are some folks out there that don't like AR15's or even....Glocks....because not everyone is the same and they don't have the same experience or opinion of something.... Just how it is.....
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 5:47:54 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/19/2015 6:04:01 PM EST by Molon]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Will:



I wouldn't say that at all, in fact, I didn't. All I said was that I normally see just over 2 MOA out of several different rifles. Lots of folks have different experiences with the same consumer products whether it's a Ford pickup, a pair of Nikes or M193 ammo. I mean, I know, it might be hard to believe that there are some folks out there that don't like AR15's or even....Glocks....because not everyone is the same and they don't have the same experience or opinion of something.... Just how it is.....
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Will:
Originally Posted By Molon:
Originally Posted By Will:

On paper, out of several different guns, using Federal XM193 I normally see just over 2 Moa. I am very surprised honestly that the accuracy of so many of those loads was so bad in those tests. It doesn't really square with what I have seen in my own shooting....


Honestly, it must be because I didn't use a government-profile WASP barrel and that I don't know how to shoot like you do, that the accuracy of so many of those loads was so bad in my tests.


....



I wouldn't say that at all, in fact, I didn't. All I said was that I normally see just over 2 MOA out of several different rifles. Lots of folks have different experiences with the same consumer products whether it's a Ford pickup, a pair of Nikes or M193 ammo. I mean, I know, it might be hard to believe that there are some folks out there that don't like AR15's or even....Glocks....because not everyone is the same and they don't have the same experience or opinion of something.... Just how it is.....


Sure you do Sparky. That's why you posted pics of your three 10-shot groups fired in a row from 100 yards using Federal XM193 that were "just over 2 MOA." Oh wait . . . you didn't do that.


...
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 6:37:41 PM EST
I suspect Molon and Sparky are seeing close to the same performance, with the difference being test convention. Shooting multiple 10 shot groups is more rigorous and repeatable. It's the better test. A 5 or 3 shot group tends to give smaller "groups", but somewhat misleading. For most people, they do a 5 shot group, look at the extreme spread, and call that MOA. Heck, that's what I think when someone asks "What's the MOA Performance?", not because it's right, but it's just the more common test basis. So to most people, when they hear "2 MOA", they are internally calibrated to think along the lines of what they can expect to see with a good 5 shot group. It's wrong, but so is the word "Ain't".

I don't even like the extreme spread MOA convention, preferring Average to Center, as the more statistically informative and the better baseline for comparison. But then, that's a less standard convention, and people don't know what you are talking about.

In any event, my experience mirrors both of you. A 10 shot group of almost anyone's M193 is going to blow past 3 MOA, even in a great rifle. A 5 shot group of higher quality M193 in a good rifle can be 2 or less MOA fairly often.

Just my 2 cents.
Link Posted: 1/19/2015 6:47:41 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/19/2015 7:35:38 PM EST by Will]
My personal opinion is that a 5 shot group is a fair test of accuracy of ammunition, 10 shot groups measure a shooters ability.

ETA: As to the whole, show me the pictures thing.....I saw Forrest Gump shake John Kennedys' hand when he got his Medal of Honor. Anybody that thinks that some pictures on the internet prove a damn thing is an idiot. Period.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 1:13:25 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Will:
My personal opinion is that a 5 shot group is a fair test of accuracy of ammunition, 10 shot groups measure a shooters ability.

ETA: As to the whole, show me the pictures thing.....I saw Forrest Gump shake John Kennedys' hand when he got his Medal of Honor. Anybody that thinks that some pictures on the internet prove a damn thing is an idiot. Period.
View Quote

Five shot groups are not sufficient to test anything. 10 shot groups are barely adequate, from a statistical point of view. Considering that the MIL-SPEC accuracy requirements for ammunition are based on fundamental statistical analysis of huge quantities of ammunition, and that GI ammunition accuracy has been a rock-solid (if not "tack driving") quantity for many decades, I suggest that you read up on statistical analysis of variable size populations.

I trust documented data produced from well designed, carefully conducted tests. I do not trust any "data" that is not backed up with documentation. I believe Molon's data is accurate within the limits of his ability to measure such values, and as he has published his protocols - and they're both straightforward and well constructed - his tests can be verified by others using the same procedures and equipment. This is called "science," and it's how factual information is developed, tested, and used to monitor and improve processes such as loading and shooting.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 1:23:45 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GHPorter:

Five shot groups are not sufficient to test anything. 10 shot groups are barely adequate, from a statistical point of view. Considering that the MIL-SPEC accuracy requirements for ammunition are based on fundamental statistical analysis of huge quantities of ammunition, and that GI ammunition accuracy has been a rock-solid (if not "tack driving") quantity for many decades, I suggest that you read up on statistical analysis of variable size populations.

I trust documented data produced from well designed, carefully conducted tests. I do not trust any "data" that is not backed up with documentation. I believe Molon's data is accurate within the limits of his ability to measure such values, and as he has published his protocols - and they're both straightforward and well constructed - his tests can be verified by others using the same procedures and equipment. This is called "science," and it's how factual information is developed, tested, and used to monitor and improve processes such as loading and shooting.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GHPorter:
Originally Posted By Will:
My personal opinion is that a 5 shot group is a fair test of accuracy of ammunition, 10 shot groups measure a shooters ability.

ETA: As to the whole, show me the pictures thing.....I saw Forrest Gump shake John Kennedys' hand when he got his Medal of Honor. Anybody that thinks that some pictures on the internet prove a damn thing is an idiot. Period.

Five shot groups are not sufficient to test anything. 10 shot groups are barely adequate, from a statistical point of view. Considering that the MIL-SPEC accuracy requirements for ammunition are based on fundamental statistical analysis of huge quantities of ammunition, and that GI ammunition accuracy has been a rock-solid (if not "tack driving") quantity for many decades, I suggest that you read up on statistical analysis of variable size populations.

I trust documented data produced from well designed, carefully conducted tests. I do not trust any "data" that is not backed up with documentation. I believe Molon's data is accurate within the limits of his ability to measure such values, and as he has published his protocols - and they're both straightforward and well constructed - his tests can be verified by others using the same procedures and equipment. This is called "science," and it's how factual information is developed, tested, and used to monitor and improve processes such as loading and shooting.



"Science" is Sierra Bullets underground testing tunnel with firing fixtures that eliminate the Environmental and Human Variables. What we do, any of us...is playing by comparison.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 1:40:22 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GHPorter:

Five shot groups are not sufficient to test anything. 10 shot groups are barely adequate, from a statistical point of view. Considering that the MIL-SPEC accuracy requirements for ammunition are based on fundamental statistical analysis of huge quantities of ammunition, and that GI ammunition accuracy has been a rock-solid (if not "tack driving") quantity for many decades, I suggest that you read up on statistical analysis of variable size populations.

I trust documented data produced from well designed, carefully conducted tests. I do not trust any "data" that is not backed up with documentation. I believe Molon's data is accurate within the limits of his ability to measure such values, and as he has published his protocols - and they're both straightforward and well constructed - his tests can be verified by others using the same procedures and equipment. This is called "science," and it's how factual information is developed, tested, and used to monitor and improve processes such as loading and shooting.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GHPorter:
Originally Posted By Will:
My personal opinion is that a 5 shot group is a fair test of accuracy of ammunition, 10 shot groups measure a shooters ability.

ETA: As to the whole, show me the pictures thing.....I saw Forrest Gump shake John Kennedys' hand when he got his Medal of Honor. Anybody that thinks that some pictures on the internet prove a damn thing is an idiot. Period.

Five shot groups are not sufficient to test anything. 10 shot groups are barely adequate, from a statistical point of view. Considering that the MIL-SPEC accuracy requirements for ammunition are based on fundamental statistical analysis of huge quantities of ammunition, and that GI ammunition accuracy has been a rock-solid (if not "tack driving") quantity for many decades, I suggest that you read up on statistical analysis of variable size populations.

I trust documented data produced from well designed, carefully conducted tests. I do not trust any "data" that is not backed up with documentation. I believe Molon's data is accurate within the limits of his ability to measure such values, and as he has published his protocols - and they're both straightforward and well constructed - his tests can be verified by others using the same procedures and equipment. This is called "science," and it's how factual information is developed, tested, and used to monitor and improve processes such as loading and shooting.


isnt the .mil standard for accuracy to use the average of multiple five groups?
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 6:41:06 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mcantu:


isnt the .mil standard for accuracy to use the average of multiple five groups?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mcantu:
Originally Posted By GHPorter:
Originally Posted By Will:
My personal opinion is that a 5 shot group is a fair test of accuracy of ammunition, 10 shot groups measure a shooters ability.

ETA: As to the whole, show me the pictures thing.....I saw Forrest Gump shake John Kennedys' hand when he got his Medal of Honor. Anybody that thinks that some pictures on the internet prove a damn thing is an idiot. Period.

Five shot groups are not sufficient to test anything. 10 shot groups are barely adequate, from a statistical point of view. Considering that the MIL-SPEC accuracy requirements for ammunition are based on fundamental statistical analysis of huge quantities of ammunition, and that GI ammunition accuracy has been a rock-solid (if not "tack driving") quantity for many decades, I suggest that you read up on statistical analysis of variable size populations.

I trust documented data produced from well designed, carefully conducted tests. I do not trust any "data" that is not backed up with documentation. I believe Molon's data is accurate within the limits of his ability to measure such values, and as he has published his protocols - and they're both straightforward and well constructed - his tests can be verified by others using the same procedures and equipment. This is called "science," and it's how factual information is developed, tested, and used to monitor and improve processes such as loading and shooting.


isnt the .mil standard for accuracy to use the average of multiple five groups?
The point is "multiple groups." It would be fine to do 5 different five-shot groups with a pause between each to allow cooling, but ONE five-shot group is pretty meaningless.
Link Posted: 1/20/2015 6:44:08 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Will:



"Science" is Sierra Bullets underground testing tunnel with firing fixtures that eliminate the Environmental and Human Variables. What we do, any of us...is playing by comparison.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Will:
Originally Posted By GHPorter:
Originally Posted By Will:
My personal opinion is that a 5 shot group is a fair test of accuracy of ammunition, 10 shot groups measure a shooters ability.

ETA: As to the whole, show me the pictures thing.....I saw Forrest Gump shake John Kennedys' hand when he got his Medal of Honor. Anybody that thinks that some pictures on the internet prove a damn thing is an idiot. Period.

Five shot groups are not sufficient to test anything. 10 shot groups are barely adequate, from a statistical point of view. Considering that the MIL-SPEC accuracy requirements for ammunition are based on fundamental statistical analysis of huge quantities of ammunition, and that GI ammunition accuracy has been a rock-solid (if not "tack driving") quantity for many decades, I suggest that you read up on statistical analysis of variable size populations.

I trust documented data produced from well designed, carefully conducted tests. I do not trust any "data" that is not backed up with documentation. I believe Molon's data is accurate within the limits of his ability to measure such values, and as he has published his protocols - and they're both straightforward and well constructed - his tests can be verified by others using the same procedures and equipment. This is called "science," and it's how factual information is developed, tested, and used to monitor and improve processes such as loading and shooting.



"Science" is Sierra Bullets underground testing tunnel with firing fixtures that eliminate the Environmental and Human Variables. What we do, any of us...is playing by comparison.
With sufficient attention to bench rest setup and proper trigger control, an individual handloader can achieve a high degree of isolation of the "human factor" without the $100k+ investment in the facility and fixtures that a large bullet company needs. Don't confuse "precision" with "enormous expense." If you have good trigger control and a decent set of bags, it isn't too hard to keep the "you" out of your shots. That level of precision is more than adequate for testing your own handloads, as long as you do sufficient and valid testing.
Link Posted: 1/21/2015 2:24:52 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/21/2015 12:47:27 PM EST by urbankaos04]
Hey, Molon, check this out:



Not bad, huh? Those two shots were shots I just messed up on. I shot a couple of different loads and I couldn't believe the results I got with XM193. I will be going back just for the fun of it to see if I can do it again 2-3 more times.*

Rifle as tested:





Buuut, this is what the above looks like when you're actually using your rifle at a carbine course:

We started at a 100 yds, proned out, and worked our way to 75, 50 and 7 yds (kneeling then standing).



* I agree with MOLON that I need to repeat this a couple of more times in order to say that this rifle can/will shoot XM193 under 2MOA.
Top Top