Precision shooting question

[eighteenninetytwo]

This phrase- ? choose between precisions rifle style shooting or bench rest? ?? What is the difference in style? Bipod Vs a sled setup?

[jaborni]

Cheapest most practical thing would be assuming you own an ar15 would be to buy a match barrel , (krieger compass lake cle chambering in 223) with a good scope and a nice trigger and that would at least shoot moa at 300y with match ammo.

[ar15barrels]

This phrase- ? choose between precisions rifle style shooting or bench rest? ?? What is the difference in style? Bipod Vs a sled setup?

Benchrest is fixed known distance slowfire shooting with wind flags and the shooter with the smallest aggregate of groups wins the match.
The rifle sits on a benchrest in both a front and rear sandbag and the whole match is fired from a single position.

Precision rifle matches are all different distances and the targets are generally steel and scoring is done by making hits under a short firing period.
Support varies from a bipod to nothing to all manner of bags, tripods and contraptions that you carry around from stage to stage throughout the day.

[eighteenninetytwo]

No AR- and thank you for the definition.

[MeatyMac]

The rifle and optic is the easy purchase, ammunition is the greater variable to precision shooting and until you handload your own ammunition you will never know the true potential of your rifle. That’s not to say you can’t get sub-MOA accuracy from factory ammunition, but tighter (smaller) and more consistent, repeatable groups are more attainable with handloaded ammunition custom tailored for your rifle.

In other words, precision shooting and handloading go together.

[RandyD]

If you look at the most precise (accuracy and precision are different things) cartridges, they share a shorter and fatter powder column than typical military cartridges like 308/223.


6mm PPC and 6mm BR are the undisputed kings of shortrange and midrange benchrest cartridges.
If there were better cartridges for shooting small groups, benchrest shooters would use them and bencrest shooters are sticking with 6mm PPC and BR to this day.

Here are a bunch of the currently used mid-bore cartridges in the various precision rifle competition circuits:



The 6.5 Creedmoor is much more like one of those benchrest cartridges than it is like a 223.

If you want the best precision possible, go right to a 6mm BR or something closer to that design.

In my post, I recommended a 6 mm or 6.5 mm. AR15barrels' post recommends three benchrest rounds. I shoot a 6mmbr out of my Stiller Predator action. It is fast, accurate, and easy on barrels. The downside to these benchrest rounds, they are difficult to load in magazines. I was able to tweak my magazine spring, follower and magazine box to get the round to reload.

[FourT6and2]

If you want some versatility for the future, in case you decide to push out past 300 yards, then sure... 6.5 CM or something like that is a good choice. If all you're doing is shooting at a square range, known distances, at a bench or prone, and will never go past 300 yards, then .223/5.56 is perfectly fine. Ammo is plentiful.

That said, if you spend enough money or are patient enough, you can build a custom bolt-action in any caliber/cartridge you want. And if you get a good barrel blank and have a good smith chamber it, it'll shoot great regardless of cartridge.

I have a purely tactical, PRS-style bolt action that shoots tiny groups at 100 yards and is also great for tactical/precision rifle shooting out to 1,200 yards. Was pretty simple to get it all together, but you're looking at about $3,000 before optic for that kind of performance. Otherwise, yeah... get a Rem. 700 or a Ruger Precision Rifle or something like that. These days, there are tons of off-the-shelf precision bolt actions.

[sigstroker]

I am intigured by the possibility of gnats arse accuracy........ Ive always just had milsurps (mostly Enfields of whihc all but a couple have irons) and been happy with minute of German head accuracy at 100/200 yards.

Is the 6.5 cartridge inherently more accurate than .223? or is it used by more accurate/ serious shooters generally and has a better reputation on that basis.

Generally speaking, .222 is probably more inherently accurate than either. I have no proof, but I've seen some awfully accurate ones, right out of the box, with off-the-shelf ammo. Like in the half-moa neighborhood.

Are you going to reload? Does ammo cost factor into your decisions?

[FourT6and2]

Generally speaking, .222 is probably more inherently accurate than either. I have no proof, but I've seen some awfully accurate ones, right out of the box, with off-the-shelf ammo. Like in the half-moa neighborhood.

Are you going to reload? Does ammo cost factor into your decisions?

0.5 MOA isn't what I would call amazing...

[sigstroker]

0.5 MOA isn't what I would call amazing...

Uh huh. And what have you seen that's better? Rifle and ammo out of the box, and off-the-shelf.

[ar15barrels]

Uh huh. And what have you seen that's better? Rifle and ammo out of the box, and off-the-shelf.

I built a 6.5 Creedmoor for a customer who only shot factory ammo.
He sent me multiple groups in the 2s and even some in the upper 1's.
Thats 0.2moa and occasionally better.

The interesting thing about this shooter was that he would go to the range with 50 rounds, fire 47 rounds at steel from all manner of distances and positions and then he would set his scope back to it's 100yd zero and fire the last 3 rounds just to check his 100yd zero.

So these groups he was sending me where NOT hand-picked groups.
They were the only 3 rounds fired on paper that day.

[FourT6and2]

Uh huh. And what have you seen that's better? Rifle and ammo out of the box, and off-the-shelf.

0.10 MOA - 0.20 MOA with factory Hornady 6.5CM, 140gr. ELD-M out of a barreled action (Defiance/Bartlein). Not an assembly line rifle by any means, but you can buy one ready to shoot from any number of places. 1/2 MOA from a factory Remington, Ruger, Winchester, whatever... is good for the money. But like I said, I wouldn't call that amazing.

What rifle were you referring to, though? At least then we can talk apples to apples in terms of cost and quality.

[1859sharps]

This phrase- ? choose between precisions rifle style shooting or bench rest? ?? What is the difference in style? Bipod Vs a sled setup?

Benchrest = machine operator, "button pusher"

Precision rifle (informal or competition) = Skilled marksman maximizing the synthesis of man and rifle for optimal on target results away from the bench.

All though in competition they have started carrying around portable benches but try and hide that fact by using different names like tri pod and "game changer" bag.

[1859sharps]

1/2 MOA from a factory Remington, Ruger, Winchester, whatever... is good for the money. But like I said, I wouldn't call that amazing.

1/2 MOA is more accuracy than 99% of rifle shooters can access under any circumstance. And away from the bench in actual applications of the rifle, likely 100% can't access that.

If you could, you would be a household name like David Tubbs is and win every competition you enter every time.

There are two types of shooting. Administrative and applied.

Administrative is where we eliminate all the variables possible, and check results at 100 yards. We of course want the smallest groups possible and top shooters can do better than 1/2 MOA with the best rifles and ammo combinations they can get. The result of this work is suggestive of the "inherent" accuracy of our rifle/ammo combination. The more accurate the combo, the more human error and environmental factors can stack up before you get unwanted results.

Applied is when you employ your rifle for real. in this scenario, the hunter is afield, the competitor is competing, the soldier is fighting etc. Maintaining 1 MOA results consistently is a dream come true.

Most rifle shooters are at the peak if they can on demand keeping shots in a 4MOA zone. Top shooters of course can do better. BUT NO ONE shoots to the level their rifle and ammo can once applying their rifle and skills for real.

I am of the opinion that Benchrest is one of the best and worst things to happen to rifle shooting. Best, as it is a great lab for studying the rifle ammo combos with as little human interference as possible. Worst, it creates unrealistic ideas of what the rifle/human combo can actually do once you step away from the "bench".

Once you move to the applied area of shooting, keeping your shots within a 1 to 2 MOA zone, on demand, with environmental issues, human mistakes, unknown distances etc, etc is FAR, FAR more impressive than the internet would have you think.

[FourT6and2]

1/2 MOA is more accuracy than 99% of rifle shooters can access under any circumstance. And away from the bench in actual applications of the rifle, likely 100% can't access that.

That's a strange argument and one that's a bit out of context. 99% of rifle shooters are not shooting "in the real world". We aren't military operators. We aren't SWAT. We aren't international men of mystery stopping super villains. At least I'm not. And shooting away from the bench or the range has nothing to do with anything anybody is discussing here. At least not anything I'm talking about, but you quoted me.

If you could, you would be a household name like David Tubbs is and win every competition you enter every time.

If I could what? Shoot tiny groups in some other setting other than at a range?

Administrative is where we eliminate all the variables possible, and check results at 100 yards. We of course want the smallest groups possible and top shooters can do better than 1/2 MOA with the best rifles and ammo combinations they can get.

I can shoot tiny groups with my rifle with decent factory ammo. I don't have the best rifle and I don't have the best ammo. It's not that hard. And I'm not saying it's some amazing accomplishment. Because it isn't. That's the point. And that's related to the question the OP asked about and where the rest of the discussion went...

The result of this work is suggestive of the "inherent" accuracy of our rifle/ammo combination. The more accurate the combo, the more human error and environmental factors can stack up before you get unwanted results.

Sure. But you are arguing a point that's a bit out of left field for the context here.

Applied is when you employ your rifle for real. in this scenario, the hunter is afield, the competitor is competing, the soldier is fighting etc. Maintaining 1 MOA results consistently is a dream come true.

Again.. Yes. But you're arguing about something unrelated.

Most rifle shooters are at the peak if they can on demand keeping shots in a 4MOA zone. Top shooters of course can do better. BUT NO ONE shoots to the level their rifle and ammo can once applying their rifle and skills for real.

And again... I agree. But so what.

I am of the opinion that Benchrest is one of the best and worst things to happen to rifle shooting. Best, as it is a great lab for studying the rifle ammo combos with as little human interference as possible. Worst, it creates unrealistic ideas of what the rifle/human combo can actually do once you step away from the "bench".

I don't shoot bench rest. I shoot tactical/PRS. But what does that have to do with shooting tiny groups at 100? That's fun too. And it's good for verifying your zero and the capability of your hardware. Nobody is pretending they can shoot small groups at 100 at a bench or prone and therefore that performance scales to other contexts/applications. Literally nobody is saying that.

Once you move to the applied area of shooting, keeping your shots within a 1 to 2 MOA zone, on demand, with environmental issues, human mistakes, unknown distances etc, etc is FAR, FAR more impressive than the internet would have you think.

Yes of course. The OP is not asking about that. I've shot stages in matches where you have to sprint 50 yards back and forth between every shot and hit some plates on a dueling tree to eliminate the other shooter next to you. It's super fun. And nobody is claiming they can shoot 0.10 MOA groups in that context.

I agree with everything you're saying. But it's just an out of context argument.