Realistic MOA Expectations vs Marketing

[n8outdoors]

I can't be the only one wondering if its my rifle, or my expectations.

I am only explaining the rifles I have to highlight the progression of inexpensive to higher end, with seemingly no improvement in accuracy... Which is annoying.
I have a used Savage 110 Hunter in 22-250 with a middle of the road Vortex scope... tack driver with 1/4" capability and an average extreme spread (ES) of 1" with no wind. I also have my first big game rifle from 2009 which is a 1st gen Ruger American in 270 win with an inexpensive Leupold scope. Again, very accurate, maybe 3/4 MOA with average ES 1.2". Fast forward to 5 years ago and ordered a (fancy for me) Weatherby Mark 5 Back Country Ti, Leupold Mark 5 scope with Harris Bipod. Accurate rifle, but no more so than my 1st 2 "inexpensive" rifles. I am now testing factory loads for my newest rifle, a Tikka T3X RoughTech in 7mm RM with a Trijicon TenMile scope (Thanks Rokslide for data leading to that decision), SRS Break, Limbsaver recoil pad, MDT Bipod. As easy to shoot and spot as my 22-250. I have shot every factory load I can get my hands on for that rifle minus Norma Bondstrike, HSM Berger VLD and Underwood Nosler Accubond which should be here next week.

For testing, I shoot 5 shot groups, 4 targets (20 rounds), cooling between groups, and measure extreme spread. So far, best 5 shot group is 0.6", however the average on that load (162g ELDX) accross the 20 round test is 1.3". Side Note: I dont really want to hunt with ELDX from horror stories.
Next closesed is Barnes 160g TSX with best group 1.0" and 20 round ES 1.7".

I constantly see post/ media "1/4 MOA all day" bla bla bla. I could claim from my tests, that my T3X is a ".6 MOA rifle"... It can be, but its not. I am aware, I can get more accuracy if I hand load...
Questions:
1) What is your expecatation for an accurate rifle?
2) Are smaller calibers like the 22-250 inherently more accurate than say .284 bullet?
3) Anyone else watch numerous MOA challenges on youtube and feel vindicated against seemingly endless claims of "sub moa"?

 

[fisherman983]

Not to derail your questions but "ES" is a velocity spread, not your group size.
Es or extreme spread is the slowest shot according to velocity and the fastest shot in your string of fire.
Has nothing to do with the size of your groups

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[wind gypsy]

In your case the cost of your rifles wouldn’t lead me to conclude any one of them would be more accurate than the others. The weatherby in ti is a bad compromise in $ and functionality for only a weight savings. The tikka should function better and more reliably than a savage and ruger American but it doesn’t surprise me at all that it isn’t more accurate. Also not a surprise that the lowest recoiling rifle is the easiest to shoot small with.

MOA guarantees are a marketing schtick for suckers.

 

[Shortschaf]

1) What is your expecatation for an accurate rifle?

It's different for everyone. Mine would be under 1.0" all the time but I'm not sure either barrel I own truly does that

2) Are smaller calibers like the 22-250 inherently more accurate than say .284 bullet?

I wouldn't claim that caliber has any inherent affect on accuracy. Cartrige sure, but not caliber.

3) Anyone else watch numerous MOA challenges on youtube and feel vindicated against seemingly endless claims of "sub moa"?

Just reading the gun mfr's fine print on the MOA guarentee is enough to know that watching youtube videos on the subject is a complete waste of time

*two out of three 3-shot groups*
*with premium ammo*

It's just marketing. Take it all with salt

Not to derail your questions but "ES" is a velocity spread, not your group size

Spread is a pretty generic statistics term. I would argue it's valid to use for any dataset at all whether its linear group sizes, ages in a population, velocities of shots, etc. But yes, typically people use it when talking velocity

 

[wind gypsy]

Not to derail your questions but "ES" is a velocity spread, not your group size.
Es or extreme spread is the slowest shot according to velocity and the fastest shot in your string of fire.
Has nothing to do with the size of your groups

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

ES is perfectly fine and not that unusual to use in regard to group size.

 

[SloppyJ]

Luck of the draw. More money doesn't always mean more accurate. I have a cheap ass Axis 308 that's a tack driver and a $1400 model 70 supergrade that stuggles for 3 shot 1.25 MOA groups.

 

[SDHNTR]

Mass production means inconsistent results on some level. In factory guns, there is VERY little correlation between cost and accuracy. Cost determines features and fit/finish. They are all mass produced and you can't expect that sort of production method to produce precise consistency. Sometimes you get lucky and get a really good one, sometimes you don't and get a dog. Just like vehicles these days. The only way to surely increase your odds of getting a rifle to shoot to your apparently high standards is to have a gunsmith who really knows what they are doing put something together by hand, ensuring concentricity every step of the way. And even then, you can still get a turd, just lesser chance of it. You also will likely need to handload finely tuned ammunition too. You can't expect such precision every time when purchasing factory guns and shooting factory ammo, at any cost.

 

[RockAndSage]

2) Are smaller calibers like the 22-250 inherently more accurate than say .284 bullet?

I suspect a huge part of someone thinking a smaller caliber is "more accurate" would be the result of less flinch and recoil anticipation on their part.

 

[Formidilosus]

Not to derail your questions but "ES" is a velocity spread, not your group size.
Es or extreme spread is the slowest shot according to velocity and the fastest shot in your string of fire.
Has nothing to do with the size of your groups

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

No. Extreme spread is the definition between the two farthest points along a graph, line, etc; or the difference between the largest and smallest data points in a set. It is used for group size as well as velocity.

 

[Formidilosus]

I constantly see post/ media "1/4 MOA all day" bla bla bla. I could claim from my tests, that my T3X is a ".6 MOA rifle"... It can be, but its not. I am aware, I can get more accuracy if I hand load...
Questions:
1) What is your expecatation for an accurate rifle?
2) Are smaller calibers like the 22-250 inherently more accurate than say .284 bullet?
3) Anyone else watch numerous MOA challenges on youtube and feel vindicated against seemingly endless claims of "sub moa"?

People and the industry are full of nonsense. The practical limit (read expected average) for precision, with rifles- custom or not, when seen in large numbers is between 1.2-1.8 MOA for 20 to 30 shot groups.

“Accuracy” isn’t the thing that separates rifles anymore- reliability, function, and consistency are.

 

[justinspicher]

After I zero a rifle I’m done worrying about group sizes. If I can hit a prairie dog at a couple of hundred yards I’m happy.

 

[huntnful]

I would definitely say you probably just had unrealistic expectations based off marketing and people only sharing their premium groups on the web.

I remember when I got my first $5k custom rifle, and I was just baffled that the first 3 shots didn't go into one hole based off all the bullshit you see online and on social media lol.

Now, 6 guns later and thousands of rounds, I realize that was obviously totally unrealistic from a hunting rifle, at hunting rifle weights.

I would say any moderate sized cartridge gun, around 8lbs is going to play hell consistently shooting sub MOA. Some groups sure, but all the time, not likely.

10lbs and you're starting to be able to manage the recoil a bit more, and hold more steady while breaking the shot. LOTS of sub MOA 5 shot groups will be shot with a 10lb gun.

In a hunting weight rifle, 5 shot .5 MOA groups from a bench aren't even that common in all honesty. I've shot tons of them, but they still aren't the norm every time and I'm happy when I see them.

 

[General RE LEE]

BTW I've killed the heck out of critters with ELD-X. Welcome to Rokslide.

 

[huntnful]

$6k gun that weighs 11lbs.

Yeahs it’s just fire forming, so maybe the fliers would go away with once fired and prepped brass. But maybe they wouldn’t. I never repeated such a large group once I had the brass formed. But you get the idea. Technically this load could produce .2” groups, which I’ve seen it do multiple times while forming. Or at any given time, throw a 1.5” 3 shot group. And it’s the same exact load, rifle and shooting position. So even this crazy expensive gun can shoot 1.5”. But it’s far more likely to consistently shoot MOA or smaller, based off the remaining 25 shots.

 

[General RE LEE]

$6k gun that weighs 11lbs.

Yeahs it’s just fire forming, so maybe the fliers would go away with once fired and prepped brass. But maybe they wouldn’t. I never repeated such a large group once I had the brass formed. But you get the idea. Technically this load could produce .2” groups, which I’ve seen it do multiple times while forming. Or at any given time, throw a 1.5” 3 shot group. And it’s the same exact load, rifle and shooting position. So even this crazy expensive gun can shoot 1.5”. But it’s far more likely to consistently shoot MOA or smaller, based off the remaining 25 shots.

View attachment 707118

Isn't the mean radius essentially the "average group size"? When I do large groups like this, I consider the mean radius.

 

[11boo]

I suspect a huge part of someone thinking a smaller caliber is "more accurate" would be the result of less flinch and recoil anticipation on their part.

Thus the popularity of the 6.5CM

 

[Jason Snyder]

For testing, I shoot 5 shot groups, 4 targets (20 rounds), cooling between groups, and measure extreme spread. So far, best 5 shot group is 0.6", however the average on that load (162g ELDX) accross the 20 round test is 1.3".

Are you overlaying each group over a singular POA to calculate this, or are you averaging your group size for the four targets?

 

[huntnful]

Isn't the mean radius essentially the "average group size"? When I do large groups like this, I consider the mean radius.

You know, I’m honestly not sure about it being the average group size. But I reference it a lot, and a .3 MOA mean radius is solid haha

 

[Formidilosus]

Isn't the mean radius essentially the "average group size"? When I do large groups like this, I consider the mean radius.

No. “Mean radius” is the average distance to center of all shots fired.

 

[Macintosh]

For sure mean radius is relevant. But there is also a valid school of thought that if you want to be sure of hitting a given target with +/- "certainty", the extreme spread is more representative of what you can rely on. MR gives you what you expect to see roughly half the time, ES from a larger group size tells you what you can take to the bank, ie if its outside that circle it wasnt because of the gun. I'm not a statistician, but depending on how you are using it both measurements seem very useful to me.

This has also been discussed to ridiculous nauseum here, a quick search will turn up a pile of threads of the subject. My takeaway has been that I take any measurement I'm given with a very big grain of salt until I know how many shots made up that group and how frequently that is the result. I've +/- stopped worrying about it too much as well.

As far as what my expectation is...from an off the shelf factory hunting-weight rifle I want to see a very significant % of the 3-round groups to be well under an inch, 5-round groups I want to see mostly groups hovering on either side of 1", and I expect to +/- never see a sub-1-inch 10-round group, but I expect it to be in the neighborhood of <1.5" most of the time. And perhaps more importantly I want to see it do this with multiple types of commonly available ammo. Most of the newer rifles I have used do approximately this, so I would say its a realistic expectation. A few have not, and I feel like given that I swapped out scopes, etc to troubleshoot I was confident in saying they were either sub-par, or they were more finicky than I wanted to deal with. it also makes me feel pretty confident saying that if a rifle consistently does better, it's an above-average rifle and probably not what I should expect.

Edit: I definitely see my groups open up as recoil increases. So yes, at least in my experience lower recoil=smaller groups.