View Full Version : ARX100 quick-detach barrel accuracy test
Not to be mean, but is there an actual point to this? It's not a machine gun, so why would we harp on replicating accuracy from a QD barrel?
$1950 MSRP is not an arguing point - they sell for as low as $1200.
The biggest problem that I see with your analysis is the use of the R1 to conduct your accuracy test. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the R1 is a 4 MOA optic - about 4" at 100 yards. That introduces a significant degree of variance in addition to the ammo which is 2-3 MOA.
Repeat this with a quality 10X optic and match grade 75 grain ammo so that the glass and load do not become a limiting factors.
Also, stop saying "proved."
The biggest problem that I see with your analysis is the use of the R1 to conduct your accuracy test. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the R1 is a 4 MOA optic - about 4" at 100 yards. That introduces a significant degree of variance in addition to the ammo which is 2-3 MOA.
Repeat this with a quality 10X optic and match grade 75 grain ammo so that the glass and load do not become a limiting factors.
Also, stop saying "proved."
I have nothing else to add. Thank you my brother.
The concept is too complex and my writing ability insufficient to convey in a twitter format. Since you missed the point, others likely will as well. I'll try and sum up.
Beretta's stated standard for accuracy for the ARX100 is 4 MOA with quality ammunition when fired from a machine rest. This essentially means that if the rifle shoots a 4" or smaller group at 100 yards with any ammunition from a machine rest, it is in-spec and goes out the door.
Yeah, your original post does a horrible job of explaining this.
I'm going to go with Beretta actually being right on this one. Show us some pictures when you get your hands on an appropriate optic.
Premature. Not useful.
My apologies.
I pride myself in my ability to read, even when people use big words. He's not being obtuse, it was a painful read... structure and content. Just sayin'.
I'm afraid that's my best. I appreciate your honest assessment- I'll take it to heart.
You won't see any further testing with a high magnification optic. You'll have to take my word for it that I'm a capable shooter, that my estimated human error is correct, and that I'm not lying or simply go on your way. I hate cynics.
The word I believe you are looking for is skeptic. We are skeptical about your results, not cynical. No one is believing you because you have proved nothing, have showed nothing, and you don't wish to admit that there could be flaws in your testing instead resorting to insulting others. You have a sample one by the way, which is hardly going to prove that the platform is flawed since it is possible that you have a lemon, every company has had guns that slip through the QC, hell WC had a gun recently posted here with a bad crown. Also, you have shown no pictures and in truth little to no actual data other than some anecdotal claims that you had X results, are a capable shooter and have managed 2MOA groups with an AR which is an entirely different platform. I would also call into question the validity of the groups fired with the R1 mounted to the barrel since I don't know how you had it mounted, and as with most rifles, anything interfering with the barrel is likely to cause some sort of issues in regards to precision. I would also like to know exactly why the red dot is the only way to test the precision here as well. I would also like to know of this purpose made target you have. On top of all that, you yourself even state to the effect that the test was not scientific.
So what is the point of this thread? If you can not or will not post meaningful data or details then just please have it closed since it is adding nothing to the base of knowledge here.
vicious_cb
05-18-15, 02:04
I myself have shoot some ridiculous groups with a red dot optic but I would never use those groups to make any conclusion about the accuracy of the gun since there is too much human error involved.
You have a sample one by the way, which is hardly going to prove that the platform is flawed since it is possible that you have a lemon, every company has had guns that slip through the QC, hell WC had a gun recently posted here with a bad crown.
I never intended to bash the rifle's design, I'm not sure where you got that idea. I think it's a good design that deserves higher QC standards for the barrels. I'm satisfied that the QD barrel setup, at least on my example, has little impact on accuracy.
I never intended to bash the rifle's design, I'm not sure where you got that idea. I think it's a good design that deserves higher QC standards for the barrels. I'm satisfied that the QD barrel setup, at least on my example, has little impact on accuracy.
If your intention is not to bash the rifle then your original post was off base since your claims to have proved that the system, or barrel, is flawed came across as little more than an attempt to throw the platform under the bus, more so when you are showing no proof of the groups and little information about what time you have with the platform. If you have only played with the rifle for a short time perhaps spending more time behind it to familiarize yourself with the trigger and feel is in order. I shoot competition and even very good shooters can show a good deal drop off when changing guns and the ARX is a good deal different from a regular AR. Then go back, and as has already asked, retest it with a magnified optic and actual match ammo to remove variables and take pictures of the results. Hell, even retesting with the same ammo would offer some data points to go off of. If the platform continues to shoot 4MOA or better with you and other's behind the platform, then perhaps the barrel does have issues. If that is the case contact Beretta CS and speak with them about the issue since the rifle's barrel may not then be in spec. If the barrel is out of spec then get it replaced. Now if the replacement shoots like shit and that precision can be quantified, well then we have a trend that would be of interest. But with what you posted the data is worthless, there is no proof other than your word, and anecdotal claims are not something that many here trust.
If your intention is not to bash the rifle then your original post was off base since your claims to have proved that the system, or barrel, is flawed came across as little more than an attempt to throw the platform under the bus, more so when you are showing no proof of the groups and little information about what time you have with the platform. If you have only played with the rifle for a short time perhaps spending more time behind it to familiarize yourself with the trigger and feel is in order. I shoot competition and even very good shooters can show a good deal drop off when changing guns and the ARX is a good deal different from a regular AR. Then go back, and as has already asked, retest it with a magnified optic and actual match ammo to remove variables and take pictures of the results. Hell, even retesting with the same ammo would offer some data points to go off of. If the platform continues to shoot 4MOA or better with you and other's behind the platform, then perhaps the barrel does have issues. If that is the case contact Beretta CS and speak with them about the issue since the rifle's barrel may not then be in spec. If the barrel is out of spec then get it replaced. Now if the replacement shoots like shit and that precision can be quantified, well then we have a trend that would be of interest. But with what you posted the data is worthless, there is no proof other than your word, and anecdotal claims are not something that many here trust.
I never bashed the rifle as a system. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion as I never stated anything to that effect.
75gr PPU is match ammo. Molon has reviewed it in detail. It is a known quantity.
Beretta's spec is 4 MOA from a machine rest with Fiochi ball. Beretta has stated in writing: "you should expect to attain at least a 4" shot group at 100 yards using 64 grain Speer Gold Dot GDSP or comparable ammunition."
I believe my ARX100 is at the low end of the accuracy spec, not out of spec.
You have fixated on the accuracy report. The main thing I have attempted to contribute is that the quick detach barrel system has little negative effect on accuracy. Each ammo type showed very nearly the same group sizes with an optic mounted to the receiver rail as they did with an optic mounted directly to the barrel using an Ultimak mount. If something were wrong with my barrel mounting setup, group sizes with the mount in each position would not have been nearly identical.
If I were a terrible shot or poorly acclimated to the rifle, consistent group sizes for each ammo type would not happen, instead group Extreme Spread would be erratic across multiple groups using the same ammunition. The ES of groups sizes, shooting 10 shot groups, has been consistent within .5 MOA for each group. I therefore estimate my margin of error must be less than .5 MOA. This means that any negative affect on accuracy that the detachable barrel system has must be equal to or less than that, since it is not detectable. Obtaining the exact difference via testing would require running the same test again, but with a machine rest to remove human error from the equation. Can you explain to me why this logic is flawed?
A higher magnification is not needed just because my abilities and truthfulness are doubted, nor because that's the way others have done it. Consistency is such that there is no cause for me to believe that human error is a significant factor in the test, which is all the addition of a magnified optic could possibly address. In addition, why on earth would claiming to have used a 10x optic make any difference? There is absolutely no way I could prove I had done so, since I lack a video camera and the apparent level of distrust I've been shown here is beyond the use of photographic evidence- 'I might have faked it!' With the level of distrust I've been shown here, there is nothing short of an invitation to witness a test, using a machine rest, in person, that could possibly satisfy the collective skepticism here- all because I rendered my results in text format instead of including pictures and video.
anecdotal claims are not something that many here trust Thus the comment about, and accusation of, cynicism. I don't like those kinds of people. I'm glad they'll get nothing from this. Move on and let others more experienced and less skeptical decide for themselves if what I've provided feels accurate and truthful. Skepticism is no virtue.
00stormbringer
05-18-15, 21:36
The main thing I have attempted to contribute is that the quick detach barrel system has little negative effect on accuracy. Each ammo type showed very nearly the same group sizes with an optic mounted to the receiver rail as they did with an optic mounted directly to the barrel using an Ultimak mount. If something were wrong with my barrel mounting setup, group sizes with the mount in each position would not have been nearly identical.
I don't understand the logic of this? Why would the group sizes change based on the placement of the optic?
I don't understand the logic of this? Why would the group sizes change based on the placement of the optic?
Because the barrel shifts in the receiver. The ARX100 barrel can be shifted using hand pressure when it is locked in place. The optic is mounted to the receiver. If the barrel rotates in the x or y as the rifle is shot, dispersion will be increased. The beretta rep insinuated as much when I spoke to him about my concerns about 4-7 MOA performance. He stated: 'you realize the ARX100 is a combat rifle with a detachable barrel?' This insinuates that I shouldn't expect much better accuracy because the ARX100 is a 'combat rifle' with a detachable barrel.
I shot groups with an optic mounted to the normal rail atop the receiver and then again with the same optic attached to an Ultimak mount, mounted directly to the barrel. Obviously, mounting the optic directly to the barrel would immediately show an improvement in accuracy if the poor accuracy I'd noted earlier was due to the barrel shifting in its mount. There was no measurable change in accuracy no matter whether the optic was mounted to the barrel or the receiver, so that leaves the quality of the barrel as the culprit.
Does that make sense?
If Beretta is testing the rifles from a machine rest using high quality ammunition and passing barrels with performance as poor as 4 MOA, that means the end users of those edge-of-spec rifles are not going to see accuracy much better than 4 MOA with any ammunition. It looks like I got one of those rifles.
Make sense?
That I couldn't measure even a .5 MOA difference in accuracy with an optic mounted to the barrel vs to the receiver is impressive, considering how the barrel can rotate and shift front-to-back in the receiver using hand pressure.
Beretta's reps attempting to explain away accuracy concerns as being related to the detachable barrel setup is really a disservice to the rifle. The ones that shoot poorly likely do so because of low quality standards for the barrels.
00stormbringer
05-19-15, 08:09
Because the barrel shifts in the receiver. The ARX100 barrel can be shifted using hand pressure when it is locked in place. The optic is mounted to the receiver. If the barrel rotates in the x or y as the rifle is shot, dispersion will be increased. The beretta rep insinuated as much when I spoke to him about my concerns about 4-7 MOA performance. He stated: 'you realize the ARX100 is a combat rifle with a detachable barrel?' This insinuates that I shouldn't expect much better accuracy because the ARX100 is a 'combat rifle' with a detachable barrel.
I shot groups with an optic mounted to the normal rail atop the receiver and then again with the same optic attached to an Ultimak mount, mounted directly to the barrel. Obviously, mounting the optic directly to the barrel would immediately show an improvement in accuracy if the poor accuracy I'd noted earlier was due to the barrel shifting in its mount. There was no measurable change in accuracy no matter whether the optic was mounted to the barrel or the receiver, so that leaves the quality of the barrel as the culprit.
Does that make sense?
Not really. In order to determine the effects of the barrel being loosely secured to the receiver, one would have to compare the group size with the same barrel fixed tight, without movement, in the same receiver. Beretta acknowledge that a barrel attached with a push button spring tensioned locking mechanism is responsible for its 4 MOA accuracy standard, which makes sense to me. I do not own an ARX, but maybe your locking system is out of spec, since you can shift the barrel by hand in the receiver. I'd send it to Beretta for examination if I were you.
Not really. In order to determine the effects of the barrel being loosely secured to the receiver, one would have to compare the group size with the same barrel fixed tight, without movement, in the same receiver. Beretta acknowledge that a barrel attached with a push button spring tensioned locking mechanism is responsible for its 4 MOA accuracy standard, which makes sense to me. I do not own an ARX, but maybe your locking system is out of spec, since you can shift the barrel by hand in the receiver. I'd send it to Beretta for examination if I were you.
That's not entirely correct. You're right about the barrel needing to be fixed, but wrong in what it needs to be fixed in relation to. All that matters is that the optic is in alignment with the barrel. The barrel wobbling won't have a great effect on accuracy by itself, it's only a significant factor if it's wobbling out of alignment with the optic from shot to shot. If the optic is mounted to the barrel, the two can't be misaligned.
The design uses the "heat shield" as a return-to-center spring for the front of the barrel. The gas block has a ring around it that fits inside the heat shield when the barrel is in the rifle. The heat shield's inner diameter is .002" smaller than the ring around the gas block.
It's a safe guess that all examples of the design are going to have the barrel movement I've described. I don't see how the design could prevent movement in those non critical dimensions. The movement simply isn't in any dimension that causes significant misalignment with an optic mounted to the receiver. Front to back and twisting movements of the barrel don't matter much to the projectile.
00stormbringer
05-19-15, 17:29
That's not entirely correct. You're right about the barrel needing to be fixed, but wrong in what it needs to be fixed in relation to. All that matters is that the optic is in alignment with the barrel. The barrel wobbling won't have a great effect on accuracy by itself, it's only a significant factor if it's wobbling out of alignment with the optic from shot to shot. If the optic is mounted to the barrel, the two can't be misaligned.
The design uses the "heat shield" as a return-to-center spring for the front of the barrel. The gas block has a ring around it that fits inside the heat shield when the barrel is in the rifle. The heat shield's inner diameter is .002" smaller than the ring around the gas block.
It's a safe guess that all examples of the design are going to have the barrel movement I've described. I don't see how the design could prevent movement in those non critical dimensions. The movement simply isn't in any dimension that causes significant misalignment with an optic mounted to the receiver. Front to back and twisting movements of the barrel don't matter much to the projectile.
So if you had a custom match grade barrel made for the ARX, it could produce sub moa groups with it's QD barrel lockup?
I don't think sub MOA. I think there is some lateral movement, I just can't measure it. I believe it is adding less than .5 MOA to overall group size. To test that kind of thing said match barrel and a machine rest would really be needed. When it comes to sub MOA accuracy, that's when all the little things like rigidity and bolt lockup reportedly start to matter- I'm not a benchrest shooter though.
We did some math and determined that .001" of barrel wobble, measured at the gas block/heatshield interface, would add .9(something) inches to group size at 100 yards. My example can not be deviating more than .0005" at that location. It could be less, I just can't measure it because my current setup isn't precise enough.
I never bashed the rifle as a system. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion as I never stated anything to that effect.
75gr PPU is match ammo. Molon has reviewed it in detail. It is a known quantity.
Beretta's spec is 4 MOA from a machine rest with Fiochi ball. Beretta has stated in writing: "you should expect to attain at least a 4" shot group at 100 yards using 64 grain Speer Gold Dot GDSP or comparable ammunition."
I believe my ARX100 is at the low end of the accuracy spec, not out of spec.
You have fixated on the accuracy report. The main thing I have attempted to contribute is that the quick detach barrel system has little negative effect on accuracy. Each ammo type showed very nearly the same group sizes with an optic mounted to the receiver rail as they did with an optic mounted directly to the barrel using an Ultimak mount. If something were wrong with my barrel mounting setup, group sizes with the mount in each position would not have been nearly identical.
If I were a terrible shot or poorly acclimated to the rifle, consistent group sizes for each ammo type would not happen, instead group Extreme Spread would be erratic across multiple groups using the same ammunition. The ES of groups sizes, shooting 10 shot groups, has been consistent within .5 MOA for each group. I therefore estimate my margin of error must be less than .5 MOA. This means that any negative affect on accuracy that the detachable barrel system has must be equal to or less than that, since it is not detectable. Obtaining the exact difference via testing would require running the same test again, but with a machine rest to remove human error from the equation. Can you explain to me why this logic is flawed?
A higher magnification is not needed just because my abilities and truthfulness are doubted, nor because that's the way others have done it. Consistency is such that there is no cause for me to believe that human error is a significant factor in the test, which is all the addition of a magnified optic could possibly address. In addition, why on earth would claiming to have used a 10x optic make any difference? There is absolutely no way I could prove I had done so, since I lack a video camera and the apparent level of distrust I've been shown here is beyond the use of photographic evidence- 'I might have faked it!' With the level of distrust I've been shown here, there is nothing short of an invitation to witness a test, using a machine rest, in person, that could possibly satisfy the collective skepticism here- all because I rendered my results in text format instead of including pictures and video.
Thus the comment about, and accusation of, cynicism. I don't like those kinds of people. I'm glad they'll get nothing from this. Move on and let others more experienced and less skeptical decide for themselves if what I've provided feels accurate and truthful. Skepticism is no virtue.
Your original post stated you had "proved" X(Post is now down and I can't quote it from memory) about the Beretta ARX. Then when your testing methods and set up(Optic choice, ammo, Barrel mounted rail for example, The rail on the barrel still puzzles me since if it is clamped to the barrel for the entire test I would be expecting it to affect the barrel harmonics some how) are questioned your reaction is not to take the criticism and remove possible variables that would allow clearer data on whether your issues here in lie with the barrel, or the lock up, or perhaps the trigger which has been reported to be in the 10 pound range, or something else entirely but instead you state that you will do no further testing and refuse the even possibility of using a scope. If you believe that the barrel is the limiting factor here there is no reason not to attempt to confirm this with a high magnification optic and match ammo. With your response it comes across as if you intention is to bash the rifle and not offer or collect useable data, hence my response.
With that said, if you feel that the QD lock up on the barrel is fine, and not causing significant accuracy inconsistencies and that the barrel is the cause of the group dispersion then why not use a scope and remove a variable? Answer me that from a logical standpoint. If the issue is that the barrel is truly incapable of sub 4MOA groups then this would provide data that would be useful as well as removing variables. Use of a red dot with a 4MOA dot is only going to be seen as a limiting factor here since we are now testing the precision of a rifle barrel.
In regards to ammo. Yes, I am aware of Molon's testing of it. That said, he did test the capabilities of that ammo using a rifle with a high magnification optic, and not a red dot, so I still don't see how, if we are looking at the accuracy of the barrel since your current claim is that the movement of the barrel is not adversely affecting accuracy enough to matter, why you wouldn't attempt the same. Again we are attempting to remove as many variables here as possible to get raw data.
Also, to quote him, among many others, every barrel is a law unto itself. I have seen rifles shoot very nice groups with 75gr ammo, as well as others who would group very well with other ammo not shoot match 75gr worth a good goddamn so there is the possibility that the barrel simple does not like the 75gr Prvi. Using other ammo of "known quantity" would remove this variable.
My ending points are that there are still too many variables here for any manner of conclusion to be drawn, let alone anything to be proven. From optic selection, to mounting optics to the barrel, which again I am unsure of what you are attempting to prove here with that particular test, and for that matter I still want to see that particular mount because from how I am envisioning the thing, it much have a truly prodigious sparer to be usable. Were all groups shot with that rail mounted there, or were only one part of the test conducted with that rail there? I cannot see how a rail mounted directly to the barrel is not going to cause some issues. As well as ammo selection.
Your original post stated you had "proved" X(Post is now down and I can't quote it from memory) about the Beretta ARX. Then when your testing methods and set up(Optic choice, ammo, Barrel mounted rail for example, The rail on the barrel still puzzles me since if it is clamped to the barrel for the entire test I would be expecting it to affect the barrel harmonics some how) are questioned your reaction is not to take the criticism and remove possible variables that would allow clearer data on whether your issues here in lie with the barrel, or the lock up, or perhaps the trigger which has been reported to be in the 10 pound range, or something else entirely but instead you state that you will do no further testing and refuse the even possibility of using a scope. If you believe that the barrel is the limiting factor here there is no reason not to attempt to confirm this with a high magnification optic and match ammo. With your response it comes across as if you intention is to bash the rifle and not offer or collect useable data, hence my response.
First, testing with a 10x optic does not remove any variables. It is certainly more optimal than a red dot when using targets which rely on a centered point for alignment, but a target specifically implemented to frame a 4 MOA dot at the intended distance makes even slight misalignment very obvious. The edges of the dot are centered inside a white diamond which is surrounded by a black diamond on a white background. The white center diamond displays symmetrical corners when the dot is aligned and the black provides clear contrast. When used from a bench or prone with the rifle bagged at the front and back, the shooter can adjust natural point of aim to align, breath, hold at precise alignment, and fire the shot.
Second, even if a 10x optic were used, you'd have to trust that I had actually used it and that I used it to the best of human ability. Up to this point you and others have displayed a striking level of distrust and disrespect. You want a 10x optic because you have enshrined it in your mind as a peerless standard, baselessly disbelieve it's possible for a 1x optic with a 4 MOA reticle to offer acceptable precision, and doubt my ability to operate the ARX100 to the same degree as the AR15 besides!
I provided information which should tell you that my shooting precision is sufficient: repeatable 2 MOA performance with a lightweight barrel AR15 with 4 MOA Comp M2 aimpoint using 55gr FMJ Hornady hand loads and dry firing the ARX100 without reticle movement. You should be able to extrapolate that the AR15 rifle/ammo configuration is likely incapable of mechanical 1 MOA performance and that repeatable performance of 2 MOA with a 4 MOA reticle indicates acceptable precision from that user/equipment/target combination.
Third, I do not own a 10x scope.
With that said, if you feel that the QD lock up on the barrel is fine, and not causing significant accuracy inconsistencies and that the barrel is the cause of the group dispersion then why not use a scope and remove a variable? Answer me that from a logical standpoint. If the issue is that the barrel is truly incapable of sub 4MOA groups then this would provide data that would be useful as well as removing variables. Use of a red dot with a 4MOA dot is only going to be seen as a limiting factor here since we are now testing the precision of a rifle barrel.
Use of a 10x scope does not remove any variables. It would only serve to placate fixation. Furthermore, I have already been censured and dismissed by our apparent resident Druid of The Dogma of Science for Dogma-inappropriate Use of the English Language in a Science Related Conversation. There is nothing for me to gain by such a course of action and nothing to be gained by yourself since my integrity and competence have already been called into question.
Also, to quote him, among many others, every barrel is a law unto itself. I have seen rifles shoot very nice groups with 75gr ammo, as well as others who would group very well with other ammo not shoot match 75gr worth a good goddamn so there is the possibility that the barrel simple does not like the 75gr Prvi. Using other ammo of "known quantity" would remove this variable.
Certainly, however this test was performed to for my personal benefit with the ammunition I have on hand, primarily to determine if some flaw in the quick attach barrel system of my example was a significant factor in the group sizes I'd witnessed. The tested factory ammunition types did not produce the accuracy I would have liked, but were still consistent and useful to see if there was a massive change in dispersion after mounting the optic to the barrel. There wasn't.
My ending points are that there are still too many variables here for any manner of conclusion to be drawn, let alone anything to be proven.
Again, I claim that my target type allows acceptable precision with a 4 MOA aiming point. I provided a written report that should be sufficient for the experienced shooter reading it to determine that consistency and precision of the user and equipment is acceptable for the purpose of establishing whether or not the barrel was shifting in alignment with the receiver-mounted optic, causing enlarged dispersion.
From optic selection, to mounting optics to the barrel, which again I am unsure of what you are attempting to prove here with that particular test, and for that matter I still want to see that particular mount because from how I am envisioning the thing, it much have a truly prodigious sparer to be usable. Were all groups shot with that rail mounted there, or were only one part of the test conducted with that rail there? I cannot see how a rail mounted directly to the barrel is not going to cause some issues. As well as ammo selection.
Optic selection was because unlimited eye relief was necessary, as the optic would have to be mounted to the exposed barrel for part of the test. The optic also allowed consistency with the AR15 comparison rifle, as a 4 MOA red dot has been used with it to establish its consistent recorded accuracy potential (2 MOA).
The mount is an Ultimak Model# M1-B AK mount. It is a commonly used item and is easy to look up. It is designed to clamp directly to the barrel of a rifle to serve as an optic mount. The mount had to be shimmed, as the exposed barrel of the ARX100 was almost exactly .1" too thin. The mount was absolutely rigid as installed and I was unable to noticeably shift it by torquing the barrel and mount against one another strongly by hand and comparing witness marks on the barrel and mount.
The first groups were shot with each ammo type with the optic mounted to the receiver rail, without the ultimak in place. The next groups were shot with the ultimak mounted to the barrel, with the optic still attached to the receiver rail. The final groups were shot with the optic mounted to the ultimak, mounted to the barrel.
Had the respectively witnessed 4.25", 4.75", and 6" largest extreme spreads of factory ammunition types been primarily due to the barrel shifting in the receiver shot-to-shot, mounting an optic directly to the barrel, to ensure alignment of the optic and barrel by directly mating them, would have eliminating barrel movement as a factor and displayed measurably decreased group extreme spreads. There was no measurable difference, therefore any movement of the barrel cannot be the primary reason I'm seeing 4 MOA minimum ES with the ammunition types tested.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.