What irritates me about sub MOA

[Dr. Vette]

I do find it both sad and funny that their Vanguard line has a model that offers Sub-MOA guarantee for around $650-800. And their Mark V line, starting at $1,800 and go up from there, only have a 1.5" guarantee.

Every Vanguard has the Sub-MOA guarantee.

"Weatherby® Vanguard® Series 2 rifles are guaranteed to shoot a 3-shot group of .99" or less at 100 yards (SUB-MOA) when used with specified Weatherby® factory or premium ammunition"

And yes, there is no reason that the Mark V shouldn't meet or beat that guarantee, especially for the price.

 

[Canadian Bushman]

Give me a factory gun that shoots 1 moa to 1k and im a pretty happy guy!

 

[FEENIX]

Give me a factory gun that shoots 1 moa to 1k and im a pretty happy guy!

It don't get no simpler than that!

 

[mountainman56]

Give me a factory gun that shoots 1 moa to 1k and im a pretty happy guy!

There ya go! Summed up perfectly. Len wouldn't sell very many rifles if we could do this.

 

[MMERSS]

Finally, you ask:

"Who would bet $50 they can hit a 10" target at 1000 yards on your first shot?"

If you're asking a group of experienced and realistic LR Hunters, you'll see far fewer hands on this question.

And of the remaining few that raise their hand, is it with a degree of confidence mixed with a sense of reservation!

 

[FearNoWind]

... So when I see a discussion about a rifle that's a 1/4 MOA vs. 1/2 MOA, what I'm thinking is: so can one hit a 2.5" target at 1000, and the other can hit a 5" target? NO! The size target they're able to hit at LR has much more to do with the shooters mastery of the factors affecting accuracy, rather than precision.
-Bryan

In defense of the sub MOA rifle.
Yesterday, I scored the target for a guy shooting F Class. The "X" ring on this target is five inches. His equipment (besides a quality custom built rifle) included a good quality rest and butt bag. We were working with a full value 3 - 5 mph wind.
At 1000 yards, for fifteen consecutive shots, he scored 13 X's. The wind took two rounds to the 9 ring.
For this guy, a 1 MOA rifle/shooter combination would not have been adequate. His final score for the 450 aggregate event was 448.
My point is that, when reviewing posts from various shooters, we should keep in mind that the demands for accuracy differ - depending upon whether we're dealing with a hunting or competition shooter scenario.
Most of the competition shooters I share the range with look for sub MOA accuracy; the goal is always one hole. Admittedly, that requires a perfect combination of rifle and shooter. But if the rifle won't do the job the shooter will never achieve the goal.

When reading and responding to reports about sub MOA rifles, I also believe that we need to consider the focus of the posted report. Often the post has more to do with the success, or lack thereof, of a particular load and not a boastful reference to the capability of the rifle.

 

[J E Custom]

This is another topic that comes up often and is never 100% agreed on.

No big deal.

I look at MOA as a tool for determining the potential of a rifle.

The fact that a rifle has shot a group of .XXX does not mean it will do it every time, it only means
that under the right conditions and shooter skill it has that potential of doing close to that again.

Everyone has a bad day and cant repeat there best group no matter what. Match shooters that shoot several thousand rounds a month may have a better chance but the odds are still against them.

There are so many variables when shooting long range, that can effect a good shooting rifle that are in the shooters hands that It would be nearly impossible to predict the Group MOA at long range.

All we can do is to have the best shooting rifle we can and make the best of it. I don't have or keep any rifle that cant out perform/shoot me. This gives me the confidence that If I do my part, chances of success are better (Not guaranteed).

Group size (MOA)is like gas mileage It varies from person to person and means different things to different people. (And is often less than actual ).

IMO= MOA is a tool that can be used or misused

J E CUSTOM

 

[Canadian Bushman]

The fact that a rifle has shot a group of .XXX does not mean it will do it every time, it only means
that under the right conditions and shooter skill it has that potential of doing close to that again.

This is something that is not stated enough

 

[gohring3006]

This is another topic that comes up often and is never 100% agreed on.

No big deal.

I look at MOA as a tool for determining the potential of a rifle.

The fact that a rifle has shot a group of .XXX does not mean it will do it every time, it only means
that under the right conditions and shooter skill it has that potential of doing close to that again.

Everyone has a bad day and cant repeat there best group no matter what. Match shooters that shoot several thousand rounds a month may have a better chance but the odds are still against them.

There are so many variables when shooting long range, that can effect a good shooting rifle that are in the shooters hands that It would be nearly impossible to predict the Group MOA at long range.

All we can do is to have the best shooting rifle we can and make the best of it. I don't have or keep any rifle that cant out perform/shoot me. This gives me the confidence that If I do my part, chances of success are better (Not guaranteed).

Group size (MOA)is like gas mileage It varies from person to person and means different things to different people. (And is often less than actual ).

IMO= MOA is a tool that can be used or misused

J E CUSTOM

I agree completely.
I have went to the range with a good load shooting dang near in the same hole. And go back a week later and it shoots 1 in. Frustrated I go home and go back the next week and it shoot in the same hole again. I come to the conclusion that its not the gun or load its the shooter. I never give up on a proven load because I might be having a bad day..

 

[KYpatriot]

The most important point, and bryan made it pretty well, is that too often the focus is in equipment rather than skill. It is good to use the forum to remind us of that as we are hopefully bringing new shooters into the discipline all the time. Long range hunting has almost nothing to do with long range benchrest. Most long range shooters are not consistent 1 moa riflemen, so increasing the precision of the rifle will not improve results as drastically as increasing the accuracy of the shooter/solution. Increasing the precision of the rifle from 1 moa to 1/2 moa does not do as much for the hunter as increasing the accuracy of the wind call 2 mph.
The point is a new shooter with a 1 moa rifle would get a lot more value from a couple thousand dollars of training in the wind rather than a new 1/2 moa rig if he is looking to maximize his investment.

 

[Deleted member 46119]

IMO= MOA is a tool that can be used or misused

All tools of reference can be properly used or abused.

MOA and MOA guarantees
BC
Reamer Specifications
Standards of Quality (ISO 9XXX).
Standards of Service

You name it.

Referencing the MOA that a rifle actually produced is only a reference. As in, if it can do it, don't blame the rifle.......

If the shooter is not capable, on the day of keeping MOA, don't blame the rifle.

If the wind is shifty, inconsistent and obnoxious, don't blame the rifle.

If you change the load, don't blame the rifle.

Oh and one more thing.

Don't blame the rifle.

Even if it's a 270 Weatherby with 2000 rounds and an obviously shot out barrel, don't blame the rifle.

There is a rule in racing and it applies to most competitions that have equipment. The competitor is responsible for the equipment. In Formula 1, a car costs millions and millions is put together by a team of 250 people. The driver is still responsible.

 

[mountainman56]

All tools of reference can be properly used or abused.

MOA and MOA guarantees
BC
Reamer Specifications
Standards of Quality (ISO 9XXX).
Standards of Service

You name it.

Referencing the MOA that a rifle actually produced is only a reference. As in, if it can do it, don't blame the rifle.......

If the shooter is not capable, on the day of keeping MOA, don't blame the rifle.

If the wind is shifty, inconsistent and obnoxious, don't blame the rifle.

If you change the load, don't blame the rifle.

Oh and one more thing.

Don't blame the rifle.

Even if it's a 270 Weatherby with 2000 rounds and an obviously shot out barrel, don't blame the rifle.

There is a rule in racing and it applies to most competitions that have equipment. The competitor is responsible for the equipment. In Formula 1, a car costs millions and millions is put together by a team of 250 people. The driver is still responsible.

Well put! I call it "pilot error"..........I have a few good days and quite a few not so good days. The good days show me what the rifle is capable of. The bad days show me how much improvement I need. Someday I hope to have a good bench rest competition shooter take my rifle for a test drive just so I can see what it's really capable of.

 

[Jeff32]

I agree completely.
I have went to the range with a good load shooting dang near in the same hole. And go back a week later and it shoots 1 in. Frustrated I go home and go back the next week and it shoot in the same hole again. I come to the conclusion that its not the gun or load its the shooter. I never give up on a proven load because I might be having a bad day..

I have experienced this a few times in life it's always been due to optics, either the guns optics or mine lol. I have noticed that when this occurs it's often time for me to get back to the eye dr. Early on I did not realize that my contacts or glasses prescription is now off. Although maybe ever so slightly it does effect your shooting. If you are a seasoned shooter such as I have become ill will check this by shooting the gun left hand as well, although right handed I shoot better left handed just slower reaction time for fast shots, I have been shooting left or right handed since age of 12. If the gun that has always shot well now doesn't when I go shooting I will confirm this by shooting left handed, if the gun now comes back to 1/2-3/4 MOA then it's my eyes ( I've since gone blind in my right eye so I can't do this anymore) if the gun does not tighten up then I look for loose optics on the gun (I've already cleaned the barrel) if all is tight then I start checking the optics by making a 2" up or down, left or right adjustment, if the scope does not respond we have an optics issue (found this several times through the yrs) if it responds you are having a bad day pack it up and come back next week. Now this really doesn't happen to me much, I'm blessed with good shooting genetics, my dad was a marine sniper and I have never had to work at shooting much, I'm blessed that much of my shooting was natural. ( I'm an unlucky person so I'll take this little bit of luck)

One scope issue occurred with an old redfield scope that worked fine but had super thin cross hairs that I wanted changed, this is the time that redfield had gone defunk and I think BSA took them over ( which I did not know this at the time) I contacted redfield and sent the scope to them ( should have known a problem would occur when the address was Miami florida ) I got the scope back and mounted back on a Sako 243 ( L57 action) this gun shoots almost any brand of ammo at sub MOA and shoots cheap reloads at 3/4 moa. Now the scope looks good has crisp cross hairs but will shoot 2" at a 100 yards and I'll go shoot it sight it in and a month later the gun will be off 2-6". I took the scope off and just stuck a Pentax on it and it shoots 3/4" group. Now that leupold is handling redfield I'll send this thing back one day and get it fixed. I have had other scopes react the same way of not holding true, sight it in shoot nice groups and six months later the gun is off 6", change optics and problem solved.

Point once again guns shoot sub MOA optics or my eyes failed. If you have some issues as i have described remember may be a sign to go to the eye dr, just a slight change in your eyes as you get older will greatly effect your shooting sub MOA

 

[MMERSS]

In defense of the sub MOA rifle.
Yesterday, I scored the target for a guy shooting F Class. The "X" ring on this target is five inches. His equipment (besides a quality custom built rifle) included a good quality rest and butt bag. We were working with a full value 3 - 5 mph wind.
At 1000 yards, for fifteen consecutive shots, he scored 13 X's. The wind took two rounds to the 9 ring.
For this guy, a 1 MOA rifle/shooter combination would not have been adequate. His final score for the 450 aggregate event was 448.
My point is that, when reviewing posts from various shooters, we should keep in mind that the demands for accuracy differ - depending upon whether we're dealing with a hunting or competition shooter scenario.
Most of the competition shooters I share the range with look for sub MOA accuracy; the goal is always one hole. Admittedly, that requires a perfect combination of rifle and shooter. But if the rifle won't do the job the shooter will never achieve the goal.

When reading and responding to reports about sub MOA rifles, I also believe that we need to consider the focus of the posted report. Often the post has more to do with the success, or lack thereof, of a particular load and not a boastful reference to the capability of the rifle.

FearNoWind,

That would have been one fun target to pull or score. I agree with your post with the reasons you addressed. In defense of accuracy, this past year I witnessed an avid 16 year old hunter shoot a 150X12 during one of the long range Palma legs in F Class- T/R, 12 X's and 3 tens off a bipod with a lesser ballistic capable round than the open shooters. At this young age he has shot some competitive scores. Although he can hold his own in the long range F-Class ten ring, his longest shot on a big game animal has only been 300+ yards. This young competitor simply does not have the confidence or experience yet to make an accurately placed cold bore shot on a living animal much past a few hundred yards without the assistance of sighting shots to center his group. Sighter shots on big game aminals is ill advised. Although his rifle is capable of sub MOA groups he is lacking skill with first round accuracy, a necessity in this forum. Precision benefits this young marksman however, the most gain toward LRH improvement would be with skills contributing toward accuracy of the first round. A first round sighter 9 or 8 equivalent on a big game animal could be the making for the beginning of a very bad day!