|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 5, 2014, 04:32 PM | #26 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 20, 2012
Posts: 5,854
|
Honestly in today's marketing world "mil-spec" doesn't mean a whole lot.
If you're interested in how a particular model shoots, I would do my homework and look up reviews etc. where the rifle is grouped. That will tell you more than "mil-spec"! |
February 6, 2014, 10:27 AM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
|
I often jokingly refer to Mil Spec as the Lowest bidder.
But lets look at reality vs. Mil Spec This is from an post above and I have no reason to doubt it. Quote:
I also have seen enough military shooters to know the limiting factor IS NOT the rifle, but the shooter. Most soldiers and yes I'll add marines (there I said it) cant shoot. Lets look at the E-Silhouette target. Its suppose to represent the average soldier, shoulder with 19 inches. Lets take #4, the M16 at 4.5 moa and round it up to 5 MOA. A 5 MOA rifle should be able to keep all the hits on the E Target up to 380 yards or better. If you look at the ranges of sniper confirmed hits in Vietnam, you find the average shot is just north of 400 yards. Iraq (urban warfare) is less, Afghan? Haven't been there but I would assume it might be a bit farther. Sure we read about shots a lot further, but not with the service rifle. That's with sniper rifles. Few fire fights are beyond 400 yards. So the 5 MOA Service Rifle is more the adequate for the average infantryman. The problem is not better ammo or better rifles, the problem that needs to be addressed is better marksmanship so the soldier/marine can take advantage of the 5 MOA accuracy of the service rifle. Having said this I do take exception to the 5 MOA for the Garand. In my old age my interest has moved to the Vintage Military Rifles used in the CMP GSM Matches. As a CMP Master Instructor I conduct several GSM Clinics and Matches with the "as is" service rifles. I found that there are few M1's and Springfield's that aren't capable of 3.5 MOA. 3.5 MOA should clean the GSM Matches. The rifle is capable, but you seldom find a shooter who can do it. In short, don't worry about the gun, worry about your shooting. Unless you can keep ALL your shots inside a 20 inch circle at 400 yards the current (and past) service rifles and ammo will out shoot the soldier/marine.
__________________
Kraig Stuart CPT USAR Ret USAMU Sniper School Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071 |
|
February 6, 2014, 10:33 AM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 18, 2006
Posts: 7,097
|
Quote:
Jimro
__________________
Machine guns are awesome until you have to carry one. |
|
February 6, 2014, 10:48 AM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2005
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 3,336
|
acceptance accuracy for M14 was 4.0" at 100 yards.
acceptance accuracy for M16 series is 5.0" at 100 yards. Quote: That would be the ARMY M14EBR-RI. These are rack grade M14s taken from storage and bolted into SAGE EBR stocks, the rifles themselves are NOT reworked. The acceptance criteria was a maximum of 1.5 MOA with the result averaging 0.89 MOA for the first 5,000 built. Quote:
__________________
The History and Development of the M14 EBR Last edited by SR420; February 6, 2014 at 12:22 PM. |
|
February 6, 2014, 11:06 AM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 8,927
|
MIL SPEC for match ammo (M72 .30-06 and M118/M852 7.62 NATO) was an average mean radius of 3.5 inches at 600 yards. .30-06 M2 ball service ammo specs were 7.5 inch average mean radius at 600 yards; match M72 ammo was same as 7.62 match ammo. 7.62 NATO M80 ball ammo's MIL SPEC is 5 inches average mean radius at 600 yards. Linked machine gun ammo specs for both are about 50% bigger.
Many dozens of shots fired and groups typically had 250 to 300 shots in them. That was from a barreled M1903 action with a match grade test barrel laying in the V-block of a Mann rest. Match ammo's groups with that many shots were typically 10 to 15 inches extreme spread shot from the Mann rest. Ball ammo's groups were typically 20 to 30 inches at 600 yards as shot from service grade M1's and M14's. |
February 6, 2014, 12:16 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
|
The Mann Device is a interesting project, been around for a long time and is still being used.
I have one in 5.56 made on a Remington 700 Action. It's fun to see what you're ammo is capable of. I modified a stock to be able to shoot the Mann from the bench.
__________________
Kraig Stuart CPT USAR Ret USAMU Sniper School Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071 |
February 6, 2014, 02:41 PM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 16, 2013
Location: Missouri
Posts: 201
|
Quote:
To be honest, I have observed the ones who shoot best on the range are the guys that never shot a rifle before they joined, so they don't have any horrible habits to shake off... I'm gonna have to agree with kraigwy 100% on this
__________________
Former USMC Engineer, Iraq War Vet, Afghanistan War Vet, NRA Life Member |
|
February 6, 2014, 02:51 PM | #33 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 18, 2006
Posts: 7,097
|
Quote:
On the flip side, if you ever find a lot of M80 ball that holds 2 minutes at 100, buy all of it you can I've never been able to find any milsurp ball that shot less than 2.5 minutes at 100, although Radway Green and DAG were supposedly able to make sniper grade lots for issue using ball components. Jimro
__________________
Machine guns are awesome until you have to carry one. |
|
February 6, 2014, 03:21 PM | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2005
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 3,336
|
Quote:
using a 2 MOA red dot. 3 shot group can covered with a Nickel. I bought cases of it, and I've been shooting groups like this with it for years
__________________
The History and Development of the M14 EBR Last edited by SR420; February 6, 2014 at 11:05 PM. |
|
February 6, 2014, 06:17 PM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 8,927
|
I wouldn't buy one box of ammo based on a single 3-shot group of any size.
|
February 6, 2014, 06:43 PM | #36 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 5,261
|
Kraigwy
Good post. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now as an interesting data point, I have a publication, which I purchased from William Ricca, titled “Rifle U.S. Cal 30, M1, National Match 1957”. I think this was handed out at the National Matches because it was written as an informational brochure on the NM rifles of the year. Section 5. Accuracy Firing a. With the rifle supported in a rifle rest three ten shot groups are fired at 1000 yards for accuracy using match ammunition. The average extreme spread of these groups cannot exceed 4.2 inches. Any one ten-shot group making this average cannot exceed 5.7 inches extreme spread. If these requirements are not met the rifle is rejected. b. Figure 24 illustrates the distribution of averages of three ten-shot groups for 655 National Match Rifles targeted in this fashion. It is to be noted that all rifles to the right of the 4.2 inch line were screened out; the average of those accepted was a 3.4 inch average group size and eighty-eight rifles averaged three inches and under for three ten shot groups. I looked at figure 24 and the average three shot group size starts under two inches, 59.7% have the average group size of 3.4”, and there were 20 rifles that shot 6.4”, 16 that shot 6.6”, 14 that shot 6.8”, 10 that shot 7 inches, … yada, yada, yada, and there are NM M1’s that shot 9.5” three shot groups. And remember, these were newly made NM rifles!! The acceptance accuracy of the NM rifles were set primarily by the ability to shoot a perfect score. The accuracy of rack grade rifles were set to an entirely different set of standards. Monetary issues are set by people whose concerns are quite different from the user. As an example, on travel, at the rental car counter, the business traveler expects the company to pay for a Lamborghini, or at least a Ferrari. When the business traveler finds that anything above a sub compact will come out of his/her pocket, the traveler is always disappointed. So while the Soldier wants a target grade rifle, the people who over see the budget, are not interested in rejecting vast quantities of material, which will be correspondently vastly expensive, to make that wish come true. Early in the decision process statistical techniques are used to predict type one and type two errors, which are the risk of accepting bad material, and the risk of rejecting good material. Then if too much material is rejected, on Government contracts, the distance between goal posts is shortened and the width of the goal posts is widened. As it turns out the Government is ever accommodating to Defense contractors and it has been shown, time after time, the Government will bend itself into a pretzel to keep a major Defense Contractor happy. As an historical example, the Ichord Report found that the Army knew that M16’s would jam, and jam at a very high rate with ball powder ammunition. This ball powder ammunition was standard issue in Vietnam because the manufacturer of the stick IMR powder was no longer producing ammunition for the Army. However, there were stores of 5.56 loaded with IMR powder and that ammunition was used in accepting Colt M16’s at the factory. Neither the Army nor Colt wanted to reject large numbers of M16’s, which would happen if the acceptance tests were run with issue ball powder ammunition. The fact that these rifles would jam in combat with the issue ammunition and get good American’s killed was not an problem. I have run into Vietnam vets, one last week, who told me a lot of good Soldiers died because their M16 jammed in combat. So, if function is of lesser importance than maximizing the Contractor’s profits, just where do accuracy considerations fall in the big scheme of things?
__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading. |
|||
February 6, 2014, 10:38 PM | #37 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 18, 2006
Posts: 7,097
|
Quote:
Basic Training and Unit training. Soldiers are expected to get a battlesight zero (also known as a point blank range zero) and engage torso size targets out to 300 meters. The use of iron sights and red dot sights is the norm for basic training. The use of ACOGs is usually trained at the unit level. Squad Designated Marksmen training. Soldiers are expected to be familiar with factors affecting external ballistics to include altitude/air pressure, wind, and gravity and engage targets out to 600 meters. Qualification can take place at 500 meters, 600 yards, or 600 meters depending on maximum range length available. The use of ACOGs is required for the course, but units can choose to arm the SDM with any solution. Sniper training. Soldiers are expected to master range estimation, wind compensation, moving target compensation, and engage targets to 800 meters. The M110 and Leupold Mk4 are the tools the schoolhouse has gone to. It is a dual pipeline from the base level training to SDM or Sniper, you don't have to go up through the ranks so to speak but a lot of our Snipers at BN level get groomed from the SDM ranks as the best shots tend to work their way towards Sniper qualification. The sad part is that every unit I've been in the Joe's want a unit marksmanship team, but the leadership with authority to make it happen have other priorities and seem to be risk averse. Jimro
__________________
Machine guns are awesome until you have to carry one. |
|
February 1, 2018, 07:51 AM | #38 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2018
Posts: 3
|
Quote:
Similar to MOA - Minute of angle it is consistent at any range. Remember your trig here, and angle remains constant at every range, therefore specifying range is extraneous information. 1 MOA IS 1" @100yrds 2" @200yrds and so on. |
|
February 1, 2018, 07:57 AM | #39 |
Junior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2018
Posts: 3
|
MILS is the plural form of MIL which is short for Milliradian. A Milliradian is 1/1000th of a Radian. This is a way of measuring a circle. A Milliradian is always 1/1000th of a Radian. Clear as mud right? Look at it this way, the total distance is your Radian. So if 100 yards is my radian, than a MIL at 100 yards will be 1/1000th of the total. There are 3600 inches in 100 yards, so a MIL will subtend to 3.6 inches at 100 yards.
|
February 1, 2018, 08:21 AM | #40 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2018
Posts: 3
|
Quote:
Breakdown of weapons was simplified because during weapon jams and failures previous weapons were essentially out of the fight as they took too long to tear down and had too many small parts moving. Having been under fire I can tell you that the last thing you want to do is try to find a tool set while taking fire and clearing your weapon jam/failure. Further, it does not take years to become a good shooter. If you do not learn technique and fly by the seat of your pants, then yes instinctual shooting takes years, and a great many hours of regular practice to become and stay proficient. However, as a police firearms instructor, I can teach you to shoot proficiently with almost any small arm in a matter of hours. His statement of the life of the service member though inaccurate, is also irrelevant. Service members do not take their weapons home. Most weapons in the US arsenal are designed to last for tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of rounds under regular combat conditions. AS such will be passed to the next service member. This is not to say there are not extremes were a weapon won't be fired at length over it's tolerances, this does happen. And still the weapons perform brilliantly. For the most part. There are always outliars. Just to be clear, my M14 fired at sub MOA. My M4 with NO modifications fires at sub MOA. The intermediate round was not designed because the soldiers have no skill. Again, that is insulting. It was developed because most combat does not occur at ranges over 300 yards, most is in the range of 75-100yrds, but not all obviously, AND accurate suppressing fire from multiple locations was a game changer in small unit tactics. My Uncle fought WWII, I have those endless stories of combat and his skills to prove it. He was able to consistently strike targets at 300-500 yards with a carbine. He was also disappointed at the training levels for marksmanship at the time. Most of the guys in his platoon had never held a weapon. I can't even imagine that. Moreover, the personnel requirements during war makes it hard to equate when evaluation training of the average soldier. The author of that post really has a low opinion of our service members. This is very sad. |
|
February 1, 2018, 01:37 PM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 12,453
|
The OP is 4 years old. And mil-spec is a marketing term that means military specification. It has nothing to do with mils.
__________________
Spelling and grammar count! |
February 1, 2018, 08:33 PM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,236
|
I think most people loosely use the term. I think most intend to illustrate a condition that reflects what an average military weapon is capable of doing. I don’t think that they intend to compare the term milspec to the worst possible passing condition.
Just a guesstimate, but I was probably issued in the neighborhood of about 20 m16/M4 variants... not a single one of them was inaccurate. The very first groups I made zeroing that rattling basic training M16 went in one hole for each group. The drill sergeant yelled that I needed to shoot each one three times. I told him that I was hitting in the same hole. He thought I was lying. After that I spread them out a little. The sergeant was pleased about how I was “improving”... ahhh to only have those 17 year old eyes again. Milspec isn’t bad, things could be a lot worse. If milspec were a tool, it would be miles ahead of Harbor Freight |
February 3, 2018, 12:42 AM | #43 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 6, 2009
Location: NorthWest Florida
Posts: 1,358
|
Quote:
it might turn out alright, but chances are your platoon is about to get BF-Lost It's a beautiful Theory, but the reality too often shows more shortcomings than plusses. Honestly, Mil-Spec, to the average Veteran, usually means a step above SNAFU. Especially if they've got a few hash marks...because we all know for a fact that this statement is 100% true... Quote:
have our country's best interests at heart, but are only interested in inflating their wallets. They even invented a word for that...they call the resulting purchase a Boondoggle!
__________________
Marlin Specialist Calico Specialist A gun should be a tool in the hands of a deadly weapon, not a deadly weapon in the hands of a tool. |
||
February 4, 2018, 12:52 AM | #44 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 29, 2010
Location: Hampstead NC
Posts: 1,450
|
Pretty sure I've heard 4 MOA being acceptable for the M16A4/M4 variants. I've never been issued one that shot that poorly, and they get beat up pretty badly.
|
February 4, 2018, 07:35 AM | #45 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
In SOTIC they put out the average service rifle is ~2.5 MOA and a good quality sniper system ~1/2 to 1/4 MOA. The M24 was a 1/4MOA weapon IIRC. MILSPEC is nothing more than the specification the military requires. It is not necessarily the lowest common denominator but simply sets a standard to measure. |
|
February 4, 2018, 09:00 AM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 6,331
|
Quote:
Do the math....it is not as bad as you might think. If the shipping limit is 8 MOA is the shipping limit, the likely are trying to catch those that fall more the 3 std deviations away from the mean. If we assume the best M16A1 shoots .5 MOA, we get: 8-(((8-.5)/6)*3)= mean group size = ~4MOA....not terrible |
|
February 16, 2018, 11:05 AM | #47 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 18, 2001
Location: Over the hills and far, far away
Posts: 3,206
|
Quote:
__________________
- Homeland Security begins at home: Support your Second Amendment - www.gunowners.org - www.saf.org - act.nraila.org - www.grnc.org |
|
|
|