Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/20/2005 11:38:01 PM EDT
Yeah, we've all heard such claims and we all know what 99.999% of them are.

But it did get me thinking.

Is is "possible" for a person to be such a good "shooter" that they overcome the inherent limitations of their firearm?

And I'm not just talking about Kentucky Windage and stuff like that.

Can a person be so talented that they can get 1" groups from a rifle that only offers 2-3MOA accuracy?

How about sub MOA groups from a 1MOA rifle?

Seems to me the variable is just to great. If a rifle is 2MOA that means it will place the round ANYWEAR in a 2" circle and that can't be compensated for because the error won't be consistent in distance or location relative to POI.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 11:40:25 PM EDT
I don't see how that would be possible considering there is no way possible for them to be able to predict where an inaccurate rifle will shoot.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 11:41:11 PM EDT
I suppose you could fire several magazines at the target and then pick your "group" out of the resulting holes.

but, to answer your question, no. If the intrinsic accuracy fo the weapon is A, then nothing the shooter intentionally does will improve it to B.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 11:43:40 PM EDT
Even a machine rest can't better an innacurate rifle, and it removes ALL human interaction and the variables a shooter introduces to the action of firing a weapon.

If a rest can't do it, then no human can unless he's got telekinesis.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 11:43:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/20/2005 11:46:53 PM EDT by SIG_220]
I suppose you are trying to rationalize the accuracy that can be obtained with PTR's eh? Why don't you just ask in the HK forum what the average groups people can obtain with them? I think you'll be surprised. I stand by my claim and anyone in OK is welcome to come and verify. I have no reason to lie about such a claim. I will fully admit I am no better than an average shot without my rest
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 11:48:28 PM EDT
Natural Ability VS Physics [Weapons Inherent Limitations]
A great "controversial" topic to bend ones mind
with SteyrAUG.
I think with a "stock" AK, no. However a
refined, modified, accurized AK likely.

But stranger things have happened, I'd
like to "hope" your premise is correct.
And I'd like my "theory" disproven actually.
Competition / Exhabition shooters have a skills
far exceeding the norm, and perform "miricle" shots everyday...
my 2 cents...

myit
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 11:49:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SIG_220:
I suppose you are trying to rationalize the accuracy that can be obtained with PTR's eh? Why don't you just ask in the HK forum what the average groups people can obtain with them? I think you'll be surprised. I stand by my claim and anyone in OK is welcome to come and verify.



I said AK-47 but the claims of "some" are the genesis for this post.

And I don't need to ask. I'm already well aware that a factory HK91 rifle is at best a 2MOA gun.

And I've also shot PTR-91s side by side with factory 91s enough times to KNOW FOR A FACT that the real 91s are more accurate every time.

I don't need to ask people on the net about their "claims" of accuracy. Especially from some of the crowd in the HK forum who have a capacity to exaggerate a bit. These are the same guys telling me their CAI G3 is "just as good" as them fancy German HK91s.

Now maybe you are the exception, maybe you are just real good at Kentucky Windage.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 11:51:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/20/2005 11:53:43 PM EDT by Lumpy196]
So wait, are you saying all AK owners are just shitty shots?
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 11:51:53 PM EDT
If the shooter is a neutral the weapon and ammunition can only perform as well as its manufacture and outside forces.

I think the the probability of overcoming a weapons MOA is the same as any flyer on paper.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 12:00:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/21/2005 12:02:01 AM EDT by SIG_220]

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By SIG_220:
I suppose you are trying to rationalize the accuracy that can be obtained with PTR's eh? Why don't you just ask in the HK forum what the average groups people can obtain with them? I think you'll be surprised. I stand by my claim and anyone in OK is welcome to come and verify.



I said AK-47 but the claims of "some" are the genesis for this post.

And I don't need to ask. I'm already well aware that a factory HK91 rifle is at best a 2MOA gun.

And I've also shot PTR-91s side by side with factory 91s enough times to KNOW FOR A FACT that the real 91s are more accurate every time.

I don't need to ask people on the net about their "claims" of accuracy. Especially from some of the crowd in the HK forum who have a capacity to exaggerate a bit. These are the same guys telling me their CAI G3 is "just as good" as them fancy German HK91s.

Now maybe you are the exception, maybe you are just real good at Kentucky Windage.



Just because you can't perform with a PTR doesn't mean others can't. If you talk to the majority of PTR owners they will tell you it is better than a 2moa gun. It is no exaggeration. I am not claiming a PTR is better than an HK, but maybe a little more accurate for various reasons. If I went to battle I'd rather have a proven HK. It's obvious what this thread is a result of. Why not just take a poll in the HK section and see whose side is backed up more about the accuracy capabilities of PTR's?
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 12:02:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
So wait, are you saying all AK owners are just shitty shots?



I'm saying they're just bad people in general.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 12:03:40 AM EDT
I've only played with real HK's. I will take the benefit of the doubt that you are right about them being a 2moa gun at best.

I've put thousands of rounds through my PTR and it is better than 2moa.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 12:08:51 AM EDT
Do you have to be a member to start a poll? I've never posted one and I don't see any icons for it.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 12:10:47 AM EDT
Miss Cleo says:

I know where the bullet is going, girl. I can shoot better than anyone!
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 12:11:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SIG_220:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By SIG_220:
I suppose you are trying to rationalize the accuracy that can be obtained with PTR's eh? Why don't you just ask in the HK forum what the average groups people can obtain with them? I think you'll be surprised. I stand by my claim and anyone in OK is welcome to come and verify.



I said AK-47 but the claims of "some" are the genesis for this post.

And I don't need to ask. I'm already well aware that a factory HK91 rifle is at best a 2MOA gun.

And I've also shot PTR-91s side by side with factory 91s enough times to KNOW FOR A FACT that the real 91s are more accurate every time.

I don't need to ask people on the net about their "claims" of accuracy. Especially from some of the crowd in the HK forum who have a capacity to exaggerate a bit. These are the same guys telling me their CAI G3 is "just as good" as them fancy German HK91s.

Now maybe you are the exception, maybe you are just real good at Kentucky Windage.



Just because you can't perform with a PTR doesn't mean others can't. If you talk to the majority of PTR owners they will tell you it is better than a 2moa gun. It is no exaggeration. I am not claiming a PTR is better than an HK. If I went to battle I'd rather have a proven HK. It's obvious what this thread is a result of. Why not just take a poll in the HK section and see whose side is backed up more about the accuracy capabilities of PTR's?



Yeah, it's just me.

If you talk to the majority of CAI G3 owners they will tell you it's every bit as good as a real HK.

And as a consequence I don't wanna poll the same people who are somewhat full of shit.

This comes down to consistency. The HK91 is consistently BETTER than the PTR91.

That is true if I am the one shooting, that is true of anyone else who ever did a side by side comparisson.

Now it is ALSO true that the HK91 is consistently a 2MOA rifle. These are the results of guys who admittedly DON'T post in the HK section like the SAS, HK ITD and people like that.

Now maybe those guys are just hacks and like myself are just not as good as the guys who post in the HK forum. Perhaps Michael Chin, Tom Taylor and Fred Yates can take lessons with you guys. This way one day maybe they too can get 1MOA results from their HK91s.

Better yet, perhaps the engineers from Oberdorf could intern at JLD for awhile so they to could learn how to produce a roller lock action capable of 1MOA results. Right now the only HK rifle those Krauts have that comes close to that kind of performance is a PSG1 which sells for $10,000.

Obviously the Black Forest Elves are fuckups because JLD is knocking out rifles just as good for less than $1,000. And the guys in the HK forum are virtual wizards with them.

Just ask them.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 12:21:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/21/2005 12:22:53 AM EDT by Da_Bunny]
Back to the topic. A rifle may be a sub MOA rifle, but most military ammo is 2+ MOA ammo. Compounding variables make it damned hard to shoot to a rifle's true capability. I occasionally shoot sub MOA groups, but I consider them a fluke. I don't hand load, and I don't use mechanical rests, and I get about what I would expect, around 2 MOA, if I'm careful.

ETA: When I get better shooters to use my rifles, I get better results.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 12:25:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/21/2005 12:49:24 AM EDT by SIG_220]

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By SIG_220:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By SIG_220:
I suppose you are trying to rationalize the accuracy that can be obtained with PTR's eh? Why don't you just ask in the HK forum what the average groups people can obtain with them? I think you'll be surprised. I stand by my claim and anyone in OK is welcome to come and verify.



I said AK-47 but the claims of "some" are the genesis for this post.

And I don't need to ask. I'm already well aware that a factory HK91 rifle is at best a 2MOA gun.

And I've also shot PTR-91s side by side with factory 91s enough times to KNOW FOR A FACT that the real 91s are more accurate every time.

I don't need to ask people on the net about their "claims" of accuracy. Especially from some of the crowd in the HK forum who have a capacity to exaggerate a bit. These are the same guys telling me their CAI G3 is "just as good" as them fancy German HK91s.

Now maybe you are the exception, maybe you are just real good at Kentucky Windage.



Just because you can't perform with a PTR doesn't mean others can't. If you talk to the majority of PTR owners they will tell you it is better than a 2moa gun. It is no exaggeration. I am not claiming a PTR is better than an HK. If I went to battle I'd rather have a proven HK. It's obvious what this thread is a result of. Why not just take a poll in the HK section and see whose side is backed up more about the accuracy capabilities of PTR's?



Yeah, it's just me.

If you talk to the majority of CAI G3 owners they will tell you it's every bit as good as a real HK.

And as a consequence I don't wanna poll the same people who are somewhat full of shit.

This comes down to consistency. The HK91 is consistently BETTER than the PTR91.

That is true if I am the one shooting, that is true of anyone else who ever did a side by side comparisson.

Now it is ALSO true that the HK91 is consistently a 2MOA rifle. These are the results of guys who admittedly DON'T post in the HK section like the SAS, HK ITD and people like that.

Now maybe those guys are just hacks and like myself are just not as good as the guys who post in the HK forum. Perhaps Michael Chin, Tom Taylor and Fred Yates can take lessons with you guys. This way one day maybe they too can get 1MOA results from their HK91s.

Better yet, perhaps the engineers from Oberdorf could intern at JLD for awhile so they to could learn how to produce a roller lock action capable of 1MOA results. Right now the only HK rifle those Krauts have that comes close to that kind of performance is a PSG1 which sells for $10,000.

Obviously the Black Forest Elves are fuckups because JLD is knocking out rifles just as good for less than $1,000. And the guys in the HK forum are virtual wizards with them.

Just ask them.



Once again I never said it was better than a real HK. Also HK's are only that high because of the import ban. We both know that. Don't get me wrong I know a PSG1 would still be expensive.

I don't know to many people who claim a Century is as good as the real deal like you mentioned.

So you don't think anyone who owns a PTR has a respectable opinion basically. When pretty the majority of those who own one will support my side I have a hard time feeling they are all full of BS. If you know someone close to Norman/OKC be my guest and send them to the range with me when time allows. I will put my money where my mouth is.

Link Posted: 9/21/2005 12:25:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SIG_220:
Do you have to be a member to start a poll? I've never posted one and I don't see any icons for it.


I can't remember. But you have to start the thread to add a poll. Now back to the topic at hand....
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 12:30:47 AM EDT
The topic at hand was started because of my claim. I thought it was pertinent to the conversation. I guess not .
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 2:47:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By swingset:
Even a machine rest can't better an innacurate rifle, and it removes ALL human interaction and the variables a shooter introduces to the action of firing a weapon.

If a rest can't do it, then no human can unless he's got telekinesis.



Or precision guided bullets.


A one inch group at that range with an AK would have to be a freak occurrence, the result of random chance and would not be repeatable.

If someones claims to do it repeatedly with an AK he is lying.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 3:29:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/21/2005 3:35:27 AM EDT by John_Wayne777]

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Yeah, we've all heard such claims and we all know what 99.999% of them are.

But it did get me thinking.

Is is "possible" for a person to be such a good "shooter" that they overcome the inherent limitations of their firearm?



Heck no.

Unless the person knows exactly how the round will fly after fired from the weapon and can compensate perfectly for the difference, no. And if there is a person who can do such a thing, odds are that they aren't from this planet anyway.



And I'm not just talking about Kentucky Windage and stuff like that.

Can a person be so talented that they can get 1" groups from a rifle that only offers 2-3MOA accuracy?



It is possible as a fluke for a person to get a smaller group than the weapon is capable of, but there is no way they can do such a thing reliably. They can wobble the sights just right and happen to shoot a remarkable group because they unkowingly compensated for the path of the bullet and shoot a tiny group, but that will happen once out of 10,000 times.




How about sub MOA groups from a 1MOA rifle?

Seems to me the variable is just to great. If a rifle is 2MOA that means it will place the round ANYWEAR in a 2" circle and that can't be compensated for because the error won't be consistent in distance or location relative to POI.



Bingo.

Link Posted: 9/21/2005 3:31:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/21/2005 3:36:16 AM EDT by John_Wayne777]

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By SIG_220:
I suppose you are trying to rationalize the accuracy that can be obtained with PTR's eh? Why don't you just ask in the HK forum what the average groups people can obtain with them? I think you'll be surprised. I stand by my claim and anyone in OK is welcome to come and verify.



I said AK-47 but the claims of "some" are the genesis for this post.

And I don't need to ask. I'm already well aware that a factory HK91 rifle is at best a 2MOA gun.

And I've also shot PTR-91s side by side with factory 91s enough times to KNOW FOR A FACT that the real 91s are more accurate every time.

I don't need to ask people on the net about their "claims" of accuracy. Especially from some of the crowd in the HK forum who have a capacity to exaggerate a bit. These are the same guys telling me their CAI G3 is "just as good" as them fancy German HK91s.

Now maybe you are the exception, maybe you are just real good at Kentucky Windage.



My experience with people who make grouping claims is that the vast majority of them are being extremely kind to their weapon when they make such claims. They haven't actually fired for groups in any sort of controlled way.

My VEPR-II, for instance, is a pretty accurate rifle. Pretty accurate meaning I have never missed anything I intended to hit with it using Wolff ammo. That being said, I have also not fired the weapon for groups at 300 meters to see what its group size is.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 3:32:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NH_AR_Shooter:

Originally Posted By swingset:
Even a machine rest can't better an innacurate rifle, and it removes ALL human interaction and the variables a shooter introduces to the action of firing a weapon.

If a rest can't do it, then no human can unless he's got telekinesis.



Or precision guided bullets.


A one inch group at that range with an AK would have to be a freak occurrence, the result of random chance and would not be repeatable.

If someones claims to do it repeatedly with an AK he is lying.



Depends on the AK.

Undoubtedly there are some specimens of the AK design out there that really are capable of MOA or sun-MOA groups, though it isn't the rule for the design.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 3:56:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Yeah, we've all heard such claims and we all know what 99.999% of them are.

But it did get me thinking.

Is is "possible" for a person to be such a good "shooter" that they overcome the inherent limitations of their firearm?

And I'm not just talking about Kentucky Windage and stuff like that.

Can a person be so talented that they can get 1" groups from a rifle that only offers 2-3MOA accuracy?

How about sub MOA groups from a 1MOA rifle?

Seems to me the variable is just to great. If a rifle is 2MOA that means it will place the round ANYWEAR in a 2" circle and that can't be compensated for because the error won't be consistent in distance or location relative to POI.



No. Such is the nature of precision error. A practical definition of pecision error is that error which can't be removed from a system.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 4:12:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/22/2005 3:20:02 AM EDT by AeroE]
The errors are additive - if a rifle can hold 2 moa in a 'perfect' rest, then that's the best that can ever be achieved. Add in a shooter's error and the combined accuracy can never be better than the rifle's alone.

Tales about 0.2 moa AK's aren't the only BS and old wive's tales floating around the shooting game. When the shooter brings you five, five round groups that measure 2 inches at 500 yards, he can make that claim. Heck, I know a man that will give him $1000 for every group like that - the catch is that the bragger has to pony up $1000 for every group that doesn't.

Link Posted: 9/21/2005 4:14:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:


Can a person be so talented that they can get 1" groups from a rifle that only offers 2-3MOA accuracy?

How about sub MOA groups from a 1MOA rifle?




#1: I think you answered your question simply by asking it. No. The talented person would consistently get 2-3 MOA groups from a 2-3 MOA rifle.

#2: Isn't that the point of a 1MOA rifle that correctly fired rounds will land within 1 MOA, thereby resulting in subMOA group measurements.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 4:20:44 AM EDT
I don't believe that it is possible for a great rifleman to overcome the inherent limitations of the equipment (rifle).
The reason I believe this is because in order for one to do this one would have to be able to predict the completely random variations in bullet grouping that will always be part of the outcome of shooting any number of groups with any given rifle.
In other words, here's an example. I have a Gibb's Rifle Co., #5 "Jungle Carbine" repro in .303 British. This rifle is something like 59 years old and is essentially a cut down #4 L.E. Typically, from the bench, with decent handloads I can keep groups around 2 inches at 100 yards. This is actually very good for an old, cut down battle rifle with an atrocious trigger and a very well used bore. On any given shooting session I often produce one group close to 1 1/2", but the AVERAGE group is what counts and that sticks to approx. 2" (or a tad more).
NOW, a couple of years ago (it was the Fourth of July to be exact), I shot a "screamer" to end all screamers. I put three rounds right into the X-ring of a three inch 50' slow fire pistol bullseye from 100 yards! This feat will NEVER be duplicated with this rifle; certainly not by ME. Does this mean that I'm one of the greatest riflemen of all time? Obviously, you don't know me!
As much as I might like to believe this, the simple truth is that the bullseye I shot has got to be viewed as a complete fluke, a statistical possibility, but in no way an achievement that reflects my abiliity as a rifleman. Did my "talent" "overcome" the limitations of my old .303? No. Unfortunately I cannot make any such claim.
This is the problem. On any day the bizarre may happen, but the only thing that counts is the AVERAGE result wich can be PREDICTABLY reproduced. This is not something that talent can overcome.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 4:21:28 AM EDT
I've gotten some incredible one shot groups with my AKs. The hole is almost always the same size, too.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 4:25:04 AM EDT
Tag for home.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 4:29:03 AM EDT

Is is "possible" for a person to be such a good "shooter" that they overcome the inherent limitations of their firearm?


In a word: No.

The intrinsic accuracy of any firearm is the "best" it can possibly do. The more talented the shooter, the closer to this absolute they can shoot. But they cannot beat it.

And, like many other subjects, this is not a "belief", or a "feeling", or an "opinion".

This is a fact.

Link Posted: 9/21/2005 4:32:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:

Is is "possible" for a person to be such a good "shooter" that they overcome the inherent limitations of their firearm?


In a word: No.

The intrinsic accuracy of any firearm is the "best" it can possibly do. The more talented the shooter, the closer to this absolute they can shoot. But they cannot beat it.

And, like many other subjects, this is not a "belief", or a "feeling", or an "opinion".

This is a fact.




Thank you, O_P.
Your brevity and conciseness are an inspiration.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 4:33:58 AM EDT



you could be lucky enough to be off (aim wise) inversely to where the gun itself is going to put the shot over the course of a couple rounds, resulting in a good group.

what i'm saying is, the gun is going to put the next shot 1" low left of the first, and you just happened to pull the trigger when the gun was actually aiming slightly high right.

the probability is exceedingly low that this would continue [and becomes even lower with each shot] to where the result is a group of shots that were mistakenly placed accurately.

...if that makes any sense.


Link Posted: 9/21/2005 4:35:11 AM EDT
My AK shoots minute of man and that works for me.


Oh, and what is "cover" for an AR is only "concelament" for an AK!
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 4:38:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/21/2005 5:20:30 AM EDT by Coolio]

Originally Posted By bulldog1967:
My AK shoots minute of man and that works for me.


Oh, and what is "cover" for an AR is only "concelament" for an AK!



Uh, probably NOT, B-D.
The mil spec 7.62 x 39 ball round has been demonstrated to fly apart very quickly upon striking auto glass and many other types of barriers. I'll take my chances with M855.
I don't mean to start a pissing contest.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 4:41:20 AM EDT
Most folks, myself included, can't shoot up to the capability of the firearm. Excellent marksmanship cannot compensate for an inherently inaccurate firearm. At best, the marksman will hit that which the gun is capable of hitting and will not be delivering Olympic winning groups.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 5:03:01 AM EDT
I don't think the 7.62X39 readily available is the most consistent stuff in the first place. I have had the best luck with Barnaul ammo in my Arsenal Sam-7, but the best I have ever done with it on a good day is 3-3.5moa even though it is guaranteed to do 2 by Arsenal.

As far as the PTR I just feel maybe JLD and HK are differing in their approaches. Maybe the JLD guns have tighter specs because they are more geared towards accuracy and are not used by any militaries in the world so stone cold reliability is not an issue. From what I have read is the original batch that had so many ftf's was designed with match grade ammo in mind and not milsurp, and that is why they had so many issues. Now if this is true or not I don't know as I don't have a reliable source to quote. HK for obvious reasons would not want match grade accuracy at the cost of reliability. Don't quote me as saying this is the "truth" because I don't know. It is just my best stab at possibly explaining why many do get better than 2moa. What I do know is regardless what you want to believe my PTR-91 will shoot better than 2moa any day of the week. Did you use iron's with the stock trigger in all of your experiences with PTR's?
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 5:14:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/21/2005 5:15:25 AM EDT by PAEBR332]
It really is a question of statistical dispersion. Rifles shoot bullets in a distribution. This distribution is Gaussian (i.e. Normal) by nature. The precison of the rifle is typically referred to in terms of MOA. A 2 MOA rifle produces a group with a range of dispersion of 2 MOA. Simple enough.

A 2 MOA rifle is a rifle that is capable of producing, ON AVERAGE, group sizes of 2 MOA. One may occassionally get smaller groups, but a .2 MOA group, as in the question here, is highly improbably. The rifle itself, produces variation that causes 2 MOA precision. The additional variation contributed by the shooter is always ADDITIVE, never subtractive. In other words, the shooter will make the group size worse than 2 MOA, but can NEVER make the group size smaller. Any smaller groups would be the result of random variation, and not due to the shooter at all.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 5:22:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
It really is a question of statistical dispersion. Rifles shoot bullets in a distribution. This distribution is Gaussian (i.e. Normal) by nature. The precison of the rifle is typically referred to in terms of MOA. A 2 MOA rifle produces a group with a range of dispersion of 2 MOA. Simple enough.

A 2 MOA rifle is a rifle that is capable of producing, ON AVERAGE, group sizes of 2 MOA. One may occassionally get smaller groups, but a .2 MOA group, as in the question here, is highly improbably. The rifle itself, produces variation that causes 2 MOA precision. The additional variation contributed by the shooter is always ADDITIVE, never subtractive. In other words, the shooter will make the group size worse than 2 MOA, but can NEVER make the group size smaller. Any smaller groups would be the result of random variation, and not due to the shooter at all.



.2MOA would be impossible with a 2 MOA gun unless you were just really really really lucky, but I don't think it could be duplicated.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 6:10:25 AM EDT
I'd say "no", unless there was a definable, predictable pattern to the inherent inaccuracy of the rifle and ammo. Eliminate ammo variables as much as possible with tightly controlled handloads, and you are left with rifle inaccuracy.

Finding any pattern to the rifle's inaccuracy, other than cold first shot, would be the challenge along with being able to predict it reliably enough to make a difference.

My guess is that it would be plenty hard to determine that, and that the inaccuracy due to the rifle alone would be pretty much random, to the point that the only thing you could predict would be some factors like effects of heating of the barrel and fouling. And you could argue that these factors are not unique to that particular rifle.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 6:17:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SIG_220:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
It really is a question of statistical dispersion. Rifles shoot bullets in a distribution. This distribution is Gaussian (i.e. Normal) by nature. The precison of the rifle is typically referred to in terms of MOA. A 2 MOA rifle produces a group with a range of dispersion of 2 MOA. Simple enough.

A 2 MOA rifle is a rifle that is capable of producing, ON AVERAGE, group sizes of 2 MOA. One may occassionally get smaller groups, but a .2 MOA group, as in the question here, is highly improbably. The rifle itself, produces variation that causes 2 MOA precision. The additional variation contributed by the shooter is always ADDITIVE, never subtractive. In other words, the shooter will make the group size worse than 2 MOA, but can NEVER make the group size smaller. Any smaller groups would be the result of random variation, and not due to the shooter at all.



.2MOA would be impossible with a 2 MOA gun unless you were just really really really lucky, but I don't think it could be duplicated.



A .2 MOA group is possible from a 2 MOA rifle, just not highly probable. By pure random chance, you would get such a group on very rare occassions. The probability of shooting two such groups consecutively is essentially zero.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 6:20:18 AM EDT
Out of luck one could squeeze off a round and get 1MOA, probably better chances than the lottery
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 6:24:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
it will place the round ANYWEAR in a 2" circle and that can't be compensated for because the error won't be consistent in distance or location relative to POI.



You said it.

Link Posted: 9/21/2005 6:32:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/21/2005 6:35:03 AM EDT by Grunteled]

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By SIG_220:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
It really is a question of statistical dispersion. Rifles shoot bullets in a distribution. This distribution is Gaussian (i.e. Normal) by nature. The precison of the rifle is typically referred to in terms of MOA. A 2 MOA rifle produces a group with a range of dispersion of 2 MOA. Simple enough.

A 2 MOA rifle is a rifle that is capable of producing, ON AVERAGE, group sizes of 2 MOA. One may occassionally get smaller groups, but a .2 MOA group, as in the question here, is highly improbably. The rifle itself, produces variation that causes 2 MOA precision. The additional variation contributed by the shooter is always ADDITIVE, never subtractive. In other words, the shooter will make the group size worse than 2 MOA, but can NEVER make the group size smaller. Any smaller groups would be the result of random variation, and not due to the shooter at all.



.2MOA would be impossible with a 2 MOA gun unless you were just really really really lucky, but I don't think it could be duplicated.



A .2 MOA group is possible from a 2 MOA rifle, just not highly probable. By pure random chance, you would get such a group on very rare occassions. The probability of shooting two such groups consecutively is essentially zero.



Exactly. I have a DSA SA58 Predator that when you map every impact over say 25-30 shots 93-96% will fall in a 2" circle from a Bipod with more shots clustering in the center but many dispursed around the edges. That means that I can say with good certainty that the best I can count on in the field is 2". The AVERAGE group would be less than that as more shots tend to group into 1.6" or 1.7" of that circle and thus weight the average lower, but it would always be possible to exceed that even with good technique.

Now I shoot the occasional 0.5" and 0.6" group with it. They aren't frequent but they aren't lightning strikes either. However, there is no way I could know when the round that will turn those into a 1.97" group is going to be fired and thus no way I could compensate and bring it in closer. Some of my fliers I know are flinches and just bad shots. Sometimes I know I was right on the dime and it flew 1.5" high.

ETA: That's with handloads, and lots of prep work on the cases. With the milsurp stuff I bought from the gun store, it's minute of pie plate with a scope and bipod.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 6:56:17 AM EDT
Since rifle shots are normally distributed about the POI, we can actually calculate the probabilty of a 2 MOA rifle shooting a .2 MOA group. For a 2MOA rifle, the standard deviation is .667 MOA (assuming 2 MOA covers +/- 3 standard deviations). So the probability of any single shot striking within +/- .2 MOA is 23.6%. By using the multiplicative law of probabilities, we can calculate that the probability of a 2 MOA rifle shooting a .2MOA three-shot group is 1.3% (23.6%^3), or about one of every 80 groups fired. The probabilty the same rifle will shoot a five-shot .2 MOA group is 0.073%, or one out of every 1370 five-shot groups. For a 10 shot group, it would be 0.00005% probability of getting a .2 MOA group. That's 1 such groups out of every 2,000,000 10-shot groups fired from the rifle. Something tells me the barrel would be shot out long before one would ever see such a ten-shot group.

As you can see, such a group is possible, though highly improbable. And the larger the number of shots fired in a group, the smaller the probability becomes.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 7:05:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/21/2005 7:11:28 AM EDT by five2one]

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Yeah, we've all heard such claims and we all know what 99.999% of them are.

But it did get me thinking.

Is is "possible" for a person to be such a good "shooter" that they overcome the inherent limitations of their firearm?

And I'm not just talking about Kentucky Windage and stuff like that.

Can a person be so talented that they can get 1" groups from a rifle that only offers 2-3MOA accuracy?

How about sub MOA groups from a 1MOA rifle?

Seems to me the variable is just to great. If a rifle is 2MOA that means it will place the round ANYWEAR in a 2" circle and that can't be compensated for because the error won't be consistent in distance or location relative to POI.



Well, if rifle make and brand X in general have an average 2MOA accuracy, but any one given rifle X could be an accurarate fluke, then yes, its possible to get accuracy out of rifle one would expect to be less accurate. Variation is the spice of life. But given a true 2MOA weapon, I don't think any human operation could correct the inaccuracy.

edited.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 7:29:04 AM EDT
The answer is no...next thread...
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 7:31:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Yeah, we've all heard such claims and we all know what 99.999% of them are.

But it did get me thinking.

Is is "possible" for a person to be such a good "shooter" that they overcome the inherent limitations of their firearm?

And I'm not just talking about Kentucky Windage and stuff like that.

Can a person be so talented that they can get 1" groups from a rifle that only offers 2-3MOA accuracy?

How about sub MOA groups from a 1MOA rifle?

Seems to me the variable is just to great. If a rifle is 2MOA that means it will place the round ANYWEAR in a 2" circle and that can't be compensated for because the error won't be consistent in distance or location relative to POI.



Yeah, I know this old timer at the range I go to which shot a greasegun accurately. This guy shoots out the bullseyes at 25 yards with a stock glock 45.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 7:49:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By myitinaw:
Natural Ability VS Physics [Weapons Inherent Limitations]
A great "controversial" topic to bend ones mind
with SteyrAUG.
I think with a "stock" AK, no. However a
refined, modified, accurized AK likely.

But stranger things have happened, I'd
like to "hope" your premise is correct.
And I'd like my "theory" disproven actually.
Competition / Exhabition shooters have a skills
far exceeding the norm, and perform "miricle" shots everyday...
my 2 cents...

myit



Congratulations!!!!!! Stupidest thing I've read on this site...

How can anybody shoot better than the rifle is capable of?
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 8:09:47 AM EDT

I've had really good targets where I managed to compensate for all the variations and shot incredibly tight groups. It really messes things up because it's not repeatable. If you shoot a lot, or are lucky, it happens. Sometimes it happens to me a lot, even with 5 shot groups.

So I discovered that anything less than a 10 shot group is not representative. I still shoot 5 shot groups, but only when I have multiple targets to confirm it. Sometimes I set up five targets to get the average accuracy. Some of those targets have had 5 shots touching, others 4 shots touching and one 3” away. It’s an accident and not representative of the rifle when those tight groups occur. It has to be repeatable on demand before it’s representative.

It is also important to shoot rifles at 200 and 300 yards. Sometimes the groups open way up and sometimes they stay tight.

Anytime I see a target of a 3 shot group posted or bragged about I know the “shooter” is ignorant. These guys only shoot a box or two, while I use up 100-500 rds verifying zero at all ranges.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 8:15:06 AM EDT
oNLY if you got pack with the devil
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 8:40:51 AM EDT
It's not possible to shoot better than the rifle consistantly, however I do have a Chinese made SKS which is a consistant sub-MOA rifle, at least that's what my brother-in-law will claim. I took him out shooting once and took several rifles with me. I shot the SKS at 100 yards and got a 5 shot .8 inch group. I acted like the group was nothing special, and I then went on to the next rifle, and didn't shoot the SKS again. TO my BIL, the SKS is a sub-MOA rifle, and he has the proof in the target. I didn't tell him that one group is the only group I've ever shot with the SKS that was under 1.5 inches.

Maybe that's where some of this crap comes from, people seeing and reporting only fluke best groups.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top