Posts in this forum regarding the accuracy of the Barrett have gotten me thinking. I guess its because of the recent aqusition of one of these rifles. I have always read and even posted claims that the Barrett is poor in regards to accuracy. I have had a chance to shoot the M82 on a number of occasions now and I think its only fair to discuss some of my observations.

First and foremost, I want this thread to be objective as possible, not a "I have a Barrett M82 and I don't like you guys bagging on it thread" as possible so its important to me that if your going make statements regarding a particular rifle you should have evidence to validate  those claims. I have learned this year that internet boards are a perfect incubator for misinformation and this can spread like the plague. Enough preface, lets move on.

I feel that after putting 400+ rounds through the M82 and at least 100 round through 5  of the bolt action .50 I can make a few comments regarding accuracy. I have also learned that the .50 is whole different ball game than other smaller calibers. There is also some information about the newer M82A1 rifles that deserves to be brought to light.

The Barret is a semi action rifle that uses a short recoil barrel design. I think its design is novel and works very well. I also would say that the Barrett design is going to have the absolute accuracy that many bolt guns have. That said, I also believe that the Barrett M82 is a victim of message board lore. A lot of posts you read about this weapon are from people who have never been any closer to one of these rifles than across the table at a gun show. Its probable to assume a certian amount of people posting have experience with a M82 but limited or have used a rifle like this without understanding the variables in play with the weapon. I purchased the M82 accecpting the fact that the weapon was going to spray the side of the proverbal barn. I wanted one because its a true US military issued weapon system. Not even our AR-15s are as close in configuration as the M82 is. In short, I wanted one because its neato and didn't dwell over the fact that the internet said it basically a $8k rifle shot on par with a $98 SKS.

Put the word 'accurate' in perspective.

I sighted in my rifle for the first time at 100 short yards. I was suprised that it shot repeated groups slightly over a 1.5 in diameter. Thats 1 moa. (Sub moa if you consider that a .50 shoots a .514 diameter projectile) Thats not a precision rifle but from my experience its also about the same size group shot with rifles that many people on the board have called their 'tack driver'.

At this point I am no long range .50 expert, frankly I get lost at about 650 yards if there is any wind at all. But for me the Barrett is holding consistent groups at 4 to 6 inches at 400 to 450 yards if I get the wind dialed in. (A calm day is really a better example as it removes an external variable from the equasion. Again, the word 'accuracy' is relative to the speaker but I happen to think that pretty good shooting.  That means I can kill animals and people at a 1/4 mile away. Since a lot of hunters won't shoot at a target that far away for fear of missing I would consider the M82 accurate to at least that distance. After reading a few years on boards I was expecting to be spraying the entire range at 500 yards.  



Here are some other things to think about when you read about M82 accuracy:

A lot (probably most) people don't shoot ammo thats worth a damn in a .50 rifle on a regular basis. The M82 eats ammo compared to a bolt gun so it might be safe to say that more shitty ammo get shot through a Barrett. 750 grn Amax can be 4.00-6.00 a shot so don't be suprised if you ask to shoot someones 82 and they give you delinked M2 ammo to shoot through it. I was appalled to see how inconsistent a lot ammo was- I would venture to say the 50 BMG machine gun ammo that I have shot is some of the most in INaccurate ammunition I have ever seen in any weapon. Anyone who would judge a weapon with ammo like that should reserve comment. Forever. When I switched back to the AMAX the groups returned to normal. Even the popular Talon ammo has its issues. Its much much better but still not good enough to determine the accuracy of a rifle IMO.

I have a new M82- from what I understand there was modifications made to the newer versions of these rifles that has enhanced relability and accuracy. My oberservations could be attributed to these changes (I have never shot an older M82). I understand that the moderator on this forum used to work for Barrett and now works for a another quality BMG rifle company that will soon have their own semi BMG but maybe he can subjectively explain to us the upgrades the M82 has received lately.

Those of you that own any type of 50 BMG rifle might agree that due to the back blast and recoil a new shooter will probably become more comfortable with a rifle once they become familiar to the effects. I would doubt that anyone could make a testimate to accuracy of the M82 or any other BMG rifle unless he/she has run enough rounds downrange to feel at ease with the weapon.

Now in order to really make a statement as to the accuracy of a weapon evidence should be given. I plan to do some shooting this holiday and I hope to post some target at various ranges. I invite others to post targets so we can all get a better idea of just how bad that this rifle performs in comparision. Of course the external variables (weather, wind, ammo, person) will affect everyones outcome but it will give members of this forum a more informed idea of 50 BMG accuracy. Its got to be better than just just repeating what you read somewhere else!


Sorry for the long post and Happy Holidays!

Jason

Thank you sir for injecting what appears to be some well thought out and properly expierenced thoughts.  It would be considered insane for someone to bash a GAP built 308 Rem 700 based on the result of firing a bunch of 2nd or 3rd grade surplus ammo.  The weapon in question was never truly designed to be a long range (1500 yrd plus) sniping device for the elemination of human sized targets.  There are other platforms which perform that task.  It serves its designed purpose very well.  As you state, there are many variables which effect the accuracy of any weapon, and the M82 due to its inherant design has a few extra.  Try a 338 Lapua of any design without a effecient brake and you'll quicly see what I mean.  I look forward to seeing the results of you upcomming range session.  I'm sure it will be enlightening.

Good post.  

To add a little.......
When talking about accuracy using 50's, any discussion using 100yd groups as "proof" or lack thereof of a given weapon's bottom-line accuracy potential is useless.  

Good demonstrations of a weapon's accuracy potential come from sessions in a controlled environment where other benchmarks can be used for reference.  I speak, of course, of benchrest matches.  When you have a handfull of really good long range shooters all competing in the same environmental conditions at the same distance under the same rules at the same targets, where every hit is recorded, you can get a fairly decent picture of what to expect if EVERYTHING is done right.  These people are using every technique possible to get an edge, in both reloading and rest setup.

How well does a rifle need to be shooting to get AGGREGATE groups approaching 1MOA at 1000yds?  The answer is really, really, really good.  Guns that do that are in the same accuracy class as those which punch 0.1's and 0.2's at 100yd BR games.   82's are simply not even close to that.  The times when I've seen modded 82's doing their best, the neighboring shooters with the BR guns were able to get sub-MOA and the best INDIVIDUAL 5-shot groups the 82's could offer were in the 12" range, forget AGG.  Now, take an average shooter with average ammo/reloading skill and a stock 82 and expect him to have a lot of fun, but not be able to run with a bolt gun set up for accuracy given equal technique.  

As has been said, shooter technique with a 50 is crucial, so somebody with an 82 who is really paying attention should be able to hang with Billy-Bob and his Big Iron talk-of-the-range tactical bolt 50 no problem.  

I agree with the 3 of you on this one.

I think one of the main things people overlook when thinking of the M82 is it's intended employment.

As with most standard issue military weapons (M16/M4/M14/M249/M240/M2) the M82 was designed with the quality of accuracy second to the ability to deliver a increased amount of rounds on target. Granted, this is a concept most precision rifle shooters have a difficult time wrapping their mind around. After all, isn't the M82 a Semi Automatic Sniper Rifle?

Contrary to popular belief the M82's military purpose was not to deliver head shots to members of opposing forces at 2000 yards.

As many of you know the USMC designation for the M82 is the S.A.S.R. (Special Application Scoped Rifle). We employed this weapon as a means to disable vehicles and/or aircraft or penetrate hardened positions.

Barrett's line of rifles, as well as others, offers many options for those seeking a more accurate 50. I know most of the guys I sell the M82 to will never shoot it past 500 yards and will never shoot it within it's capabilities. They buy it for one of two reasons:

1.      They want something that, in their opinion, will bring them a return on the investment side of the deal. Shooting it is lagniappe.

2.      They want the biggest, baddest rifle out there that very few others have or can afford.

Getting to my point, If you look at military weapons today, everything has a place and a purpose. You won't be clearing Sadar City slums with a M40A3 or a M24 just like we won't be covering you as you do with a M16 or an M4.

My point is if you are getting M.O.A. out of a M82 @ 1000 yds with $5.00 a round ammo you should be pleased. If you want or require something more accurate then you should look to a smaller caliber or a bolt action or both.

As for my personal opinion on the M82- I loved shooting it. I hated hiking it. It work well for what we used it for. No complaints.

this post helps.  but i don't see the issue as one of barrett vs. anyone...  i think the real issue is more likely what someone else here referred to - what is the definition of accuracy?

30 years ago when you picked up a winchester, ruger, or remington you thought you had a hell of a good hunting gun if you put a box of shells through the rig and at 100 paces they were all on the paper plate.

today with high quality factory ammo, and refined manufacture, you routinely see hunting grade rifles that will pull MOA at 100 yards.  i'm not a barrett fan, but just the same i like the man and cheer him on in the best interests of the 50 crowd.  i think people believe since they just paid $3k to $8k for a barrett that it should drive tacks, even with mongolian surplus...



i bought a windrunner and have been using TTI 705 solids and 750 AMAX's and when i have my head removed from my ass it'll pull MOA and occasionally sub MOA at 1k.  when i don't it'll run closer to 13" - 15" at 1k.  when i build up my brass pile, i'll handload and i'm sure it'll help improve the groups.  i knew going into it though, that the windrunner although accurate wasn't THE MOST accurate rig out there.  i also knew from precision shooting that the ammo is paramount.  

the other thing to consider here is the guy buying it.  there are most on here that bought a 50 just to have one.  they bought it to run API's and melt engine blocks.  sounds fine to me.  this same group occasionally will accuracy check a rifle capable of great range at 100 yards and pronounce it MOA or not.  who cares?  so you know what it'll do at 100, big deal.  that doesn't equate to 10x at 1k though, and i think many people just extrapolate the figures and make assumptions.

part of me doesn't really want to engage in these kinds of arguements with some folks.  although i like to spar, most of the people who read this and own 50's haven't fired them past 200 yards.  i'd venture even further to say most haven't shot them at paper for much more than sight in...  these are many times the same folks who make the accuracy claims or have "first hand" experience in knowing whether an armalite, barrett, or whatever is best for someone else.

to wrap up my drunken rambling post, don't worry about those folks who make claims.  i would ask any of them to make a trip to my range and prove it.  then let me take a crack at it and we'll compare notes.  the fact there is misinformation being spread is unfortunate, but then again this is arfcom, not the fcsa.org...  for all intents and purposes this forum is pretty darned good compared to many arfcom offers.  i'd honestly say the bullshit is kept to a manageable level here.