AR-15 10 Shot Group Size?

[NorthIdahoDude]

Since we're posting gun and group pic's...

You can have a pretty good mix of both accuracy and reliability if you mess around with a bunch of different AR's and kieep the ones that come out really nice. This is a 15 round group at 50 yards with my "if I had to trust my life to it" AR. It's a me-built 14.5 inch pin+weld Ballistic Advantage 'hanson' pencil barrel (the "premium" version with 223 Wylde chamber), BA rollstamped Aero M4E1 upper/lower and handguard, very well broken in PSA nickel/teflon trigger group, and as you can see, remarkably well balanced. Weighs about 7lbs all-in with a full 30 round mag/6lbs dry weight.

Ammo is handloaded 69 grain Nosler match bullets over as much Varget as would reasonably fit in LC11 brass with CCI #41 mil-spec primers.

Note: I had swapped out the 1x prisim for a 4.5-14 scope the day I shot that group, is why it's not dialed for POI = bullseye. I can't shoot that tight with the 1x prism it normally wears.

 

[danhuntingmi]

I wouldn't confuse the design of a specific gun designed for combat with the capability of the ar platform. On the bench, unless you're a benchrest competitor shooting 0.1 inch groups, it really comes down to the barrel and the loads.

My pa-10 I just got done shooting 11 three shot groups all under 1 moa with an average group size of 0.6 moa.

Off the bench, the lock time of the ar going to get you.

 

[MTMeatHunter]

A lot of great info here! Thanks, All!

 

[NorthIdahoDude]

You're speaking some solid truths about ARs. And not to detract from any of it in saying this: There aren't very many sub-MOA shooters out there, or sub-MOA rifles at all, let alone ARs.

Further, if there's anything I learned from the thread I posted above, after giving it both careful thought reflecting on my own decades of shooting, and then going out and applying the content in volume, it's this:

1) Ten-round groups used in determining a gun's accuracy are illusions at best, internet lies at worst, with most falling in-between by guys cherry-picking what they post.

2) 30 round groups are the absolute minimum I'll trust anymore in determining a gun's inherent accuracy. I'll adjust zero with a 10-round group, but that's all it's good for - and that only comes after proofing a gun's genuine cone of fire with a given load.

3) A genuine sub-MOA AR is one of the rarest guns on the planet - for all of reasons you've mentioned in your posts above, plus more. They exist, but what it takes to make them that way is expensive, along with uncommon competencies in smithing.

4) Most guys don't know what their own inherent MOA/accuracy is as a shooter, because they've literally never even held a genuinely sub-MOA gun, shooting sub-MOA ammo, in conditions that allow for sub-MOA shooting - let alone spent much time behind one.

5) Very, very few people are legitimately sub-MOA shooters. Anyone can randomly throw a 5 or 10-round sub-MOA group with enough practice and volume. But people who are consistently, on-demand sub-MOA shooters are as rare as an honest politician.

6) Finding both a shooter and an AR that are consistently sub-MOA is one of the rarest combos in the rifle-shooting world. They exist, I've witnessed it, and they're generally current or former competitors or professionals having done that kind of work full time - with highly specialized, crafted ARs.

Anyone consistently getting 2-MOA 30-round groups with any AR, especially an off-the-shelf one, is doing well.

Truths. The one thing I would adjust slightly though, is the lack of guns that are truly sub-MOA is a big part of the reason there aren't very sub-MOA shooters. Many years ago, a guy who built bench guns for a living laughed at me when I made a comment about my shooting skills being maybe 1.5 MOA on a good day, and he said basically something to the effect of "You shoot better than you think you can, you just don't have a gun that shoots that well. If I handed you one of my 3/8 MOA bench guns, you probably couldn't shoot 3/8 MOA with it like I can, but I'd be shocked if you shot more than 3/4 MOA with it, and probably closer to 1/2." I am convinced he was correct, based on the fact that I have/have had some guns that I can just kind of wave the crosshairs near the bullseye and send it, and drill all-rounds-touching groups with, but the other 99.9% of the guns I've ever owned do well if i send a 1.25 or so MOA group with them.

 

[RockAndSage]

Truths. The one thing I would adjust slightly though, is the lack of guns that are truly sub-MOA is a big part of the reason there aren't very sub-MOA shooters. Many years ago, a guy who built bench guns for a living laughed at me when I made a comment about my shooting skills being maybe 1.5 MOA on a good day, and he said basically something to the effect of "You shoot better than you think you can, you just don't have a gun that shoots that well. If I handed you one of my 3/8 MOA bench guns, you probably couldn't shoot 3/8 MOA with it like I can, but I'd be shocked if you shot more than 3/4 MOA with it, and probably closer to 1/2." I am convinced he was correct, based on the fact that I have/have had some guns that I can just kind of wave the crosshairs near the bullseye and send it, and drill all-rounds-touching groups with, but the other 99.9% of the guns I've ever owned do well if i send a 1.25 or so MOA group with them.

I could see there being something to your point, especially if someone's got plenty of good training/experience. It does largely make sense.

The bigger part of my point on this aspect though, is very few guys claiming to get sub-MOA out of a gun even know what they're personally competent to, consistently - and as such, also generally aren't even capable of determining if a rifle genuinely has a sub-MOA cone of fire, short of the gun being in a mount.

Not saying this directed at you personally, so much as a broader reference for others reading: As a consequence of everything posted above, unless proven otherwise, my basic take of anyone's online claims of accuracy is that if it's not several 30rd groups that are single strings of fire, it's simply a bull$hit claim - either unknowingly, or intentional, mostly being cherry-picking "evidence". Guys excuse a lot of "flyers" that are either them, or just the mechanical accuracy of their gun being exposed over longer strings of fire. Accuracy requires volume for valid assessment.

The reason I'm making such a stark point of this here, is for years I thought I was a much more crap precision rifle shooter than I actually am - because of having some experience around genuinely elite shooters at a couple of points who set the bar of what good actually means in my psychology, combined with the general online space being 3 or 5 round groups all being MOA by random people claiming their gun was "sub-MOA all day, if I do my part". I always suspected there was a little exaggeration, and a little cherry-picking, but reality is that it's almost all BS. But I still just thought I was anomalously crap at shooting precision rifle, compared to what I can do with a handgun or practical carbine, at speed.

I have a huge amount of experience with handguns, and quite a bit of experience doing fast, off-hand/field-expedient carbine work out to about 300. I've won rifle competitions when I was a kid. And I still didn't have any idea how much rifle accuracy claims were just utter BS until I came across that post I linked to above - and applying it, and seeing the same with friends and trusted colleagues. And almost all of us didn't want to admit just how rarely we got the precision we thought we should be capable of.

As reference, here's a photo of what I routinely do with a handgun at 5 yards, in under 30-45 seconds. And a photo of an AR that's a $5000 build with a Proof carbon fiber barrel, that I personally get down to about 2-2.5MOA with Black Hills 77gr TMK with 30rd groups, consistently. The gun was not accurized by a smith, though I did lap the upper. In a mount, I suspect I'd be lucky to have it down to 1.5MOA, with handloads.

All of this is only being shared for one reason: for people to get a better baseline for realistic expectations - internet MOA claims only hold everyone back.

The OP getting 2-3MOA with a rack-grade AR is doing fine.

 

[danhuntingmi]

I could see there being something to your point, especially if someone's got plenty of good training/experience. It does largely make sense.

The bigger part of my point on this aspect though, is very few guys claiming to get sub-MOA out of a gun even know what they're personally competent to, consistently - and as such, also generally aren't even capable of determining if a rifle genuinely has a sub-MOA cone of fire, short of the gun being in a mount.

Not saying this directed at you personally, so much as a broader reference for others reading: As a consequence of everything posted above, unless proven otherwise, my basic take of anyone's online claims of accuracy is that if it's not several 30rd groups that are single strings of fire, it's simply a bull$hit claim - either unknowingly, or intentional, mostly being cherry-picking "evidence". Guys excuse a lot of "flyers" that are either them, or just the mechanical accuracy of their gun being exposed over longer strings of fire. Accuracy requires volume for valid assessment.

The reason I'm making such a stark point of this here, is for years I thought I was a much more crap precision rifle shooter than I actually am - because of having some experience around genuinely elite shooters at a couple of points who set the bar of what good actually means in my psychology, combined with the general online space being 3 or 5 round groups all being MOA by random people claiming their gun was "sub-MOA all day, if I do my part". I always suspected there was a little exaggeration, and a little cherry-picking, but reality is that it's almost all BS. But I still just thought I was anomalously crap at shooting precision rifle, compared to what I can do with a handgun or practical carbine, at speed.

I have a huge amount of experience with handguns, and quite a bit of experience doing fast, off-hand/field-expedient carbine work out to about 300. I've won rifle competitions when I was a kid. And I still didn't have any idea how much rifle accuracy claims were just utter BS until I came across that post I linked to above - and applying it, and seeing the same with friends and trusted colleagues. And almost all of us didn't want to admit just how rarely we got the precision we thought we should be capable of.

As reference, here's a photo of what I routinely do with a handgun at 5 yards, in under 30-45 seconds. And a photo of an AR that's a $5000 build with a Proof carbon fiber barrel, that I personally get down to about 2-2.5MOA with Black Hills 77gr TMK with 30rd groups, consistently. The gun was not accurized by a smith, though I did lap the upper. In a mount, I suspect I'd be lucky to have it down to 1.5MOA, with handloads.

All of this is only being shared for one reason: for people to get a better baseline for realistic expectations - internet MOA claims only hold everyone back.

The OP getting 2-3MOA with a rack-grade AR is doing fine.



View attachment 1076335View attachment 1076346View attachment 1076347

I agree with some of what you say. But I think I see the requirements for groups on the internet become more and more outrageous every single year.

First people pointed out how shooting a single 3 shot group from a box of 20 and calling a lucky group your rifle's accuracy isn't very reliable. Good point.

Now we have people recommended multiple 30 round groups

My belief is that people have a passing understanding of statistics but not a very good one. Realize that the law of large numbers only works with averages, not with extreme spreads. Also realize that the maxima only gets larger the larger the group, not closer to a central value.

Finally realize that, assuming a normal distribution, the 'group size' of every rifle on earth is infinity given an appropriately sized sample.

But back to the real world: shoot a few five shot or several three shot groups at incremental settings and you good for a hunting gun. Then worry about the real weak link: you.

 

[RockAndSage]

I agree with some of what you say. But I think I see the requirements for groups on the internet become more and more outrageous every single year.

First people pointed out how shooting a single 3 shot group from a box of 20 and calling a lucky group your rifle's accuracy isn't very reliable. Good point.

Now we have people recommended multiple 30 round groups

My belief is that people have a passing understanding of statistics but not a very good one. Realize that the law of large numbers only works with averages, not with extreme spreads. Also realize that the maxima only gets larger the larger the group, not closer to a central value.

Finally realize that, assuming a normal distribution, the 'group size' of every rifle on earth is infinity given an appropriately sized sample.

But back to the real world: shoot a few five shot or several three shot groups at incremental settings and you good for a hunting gun. Then worry about the real weak link: you.

Go to the link I posted, read the entire thing. Until we can discuss what's in there in detail, in the specifics of what was posted there, there's not much else to say. If you have something to disagree with, you'll get the most informed responses by replying there. But what I've shared is the most grounded, experienced, sober truth as I know it.