View Full Version : Can I get a no BS answer? Defensive Carbine accuracy?
My defensive rifle has, as of right now, fixed sights. Before I go spending money on an optic of any kind I want to know that I actually "need" one. I understand that an optic is likely to improve accuracy. That's not a topic I care to get into.
So from a fixed sight defensive Carbine what MOA should I be happy with?
Not what 20" NM gun can do but what is a realistic goal for Carbine.
I like to shoot/stock XM193 if that helps.
Thanks.
An Undocumented Worker
08-03-11, 18:16
If I recall correctly you need to be able to shoot 3 moa consistently to qualify marksman on an Army Qualification Test.
That being done with old well worn rifles with iron sights.
Guess what everyone did before optics came around? They killed people with iron sights. All you really need is a decent light and a sling and you should be GTG.
PRGGodfather
08-03-11, 18:33
As always, it really depends on what you're planning to do with the carbine. Like Iraqgunz said, a sling and light should be the priorities.
A fighting carbine capable of producing 3 MOA is a good carbine, and more than acceptable for practical combat. Mechanical/inherent accuracy exists in the barrel quality and how well a firearm is assembled.
Optics don't improve mechanical accuracy, per se -- magnification makes it easier for us to see targets far away and place shots. One-power (no magnification) optics allow us to get onto the target more quickly, keep both eyes open and broaden our field of view (although one can also train to keep both eyes open when aligning fixed sights). It is usually easier and faster to superimpose a dot onto a target, than to align sights onto a target, as they are all on different focal planes. For some, an optic may actually reduce wobble zone.
Will an optic improve your accuracy? Not necessarily. Will an optic enhance your vision and make it easier for you get onto target? Very likely. Does everyone need an optic? Absolutely not.
Hope that's no BS enough. YMMV.
Be safe!
Jason Falla
08-03-11, 18:39
A mil-spec carbine is capable of 4MOA. This standard is derived from a combination of the technology of the manufacturer meeting or exceeding the mil-spec standards for accuracy and the mil-spec ammunition to be fired through it.
The mil-spec standards for accuracy is 2MOA and the mil-spec standards for ammunition accuracy is 2MOA. These to factors combine to give you the overall accuracy standard of 2MOA.
It is likely that due to manufacturing technology the gun itself can produce accuracy better then 2MOA but the standard is 2MOA.
OTM ammunition can produce accuracy results better than 2MOA also but the standard is 2MOA. The typical ammunition tested is XM193 and M855. However, there are other JAG approved rounds that are Open Tip Match (OTM) rounds and can perform to 1MOA.
The biggest anomaly to accuracy is the shooter and the shooter makes up the third and final component to overall accuracy.
The U.S Army marksmanship standards suggest that a shooter should be able to shoot a 1.5" group at 25 meters. This extrapolates to the same shooter shooting a 6" group at 100m or 6MOA.
6MOA is seen as a standard of marksmanship accuracy using a Government issued M4 carbine, service approved ammunition and a decent shooter behind the gun.
Just like with the manufacturing technology, the OTM (JAG approved) ammunition, the shooter can produce results greater than 1.5" at 25m.
The Redback One marksmanship standards are as follows:
A. 1" five round group at 25m
B. 2" ten round group at 50m
C. 4" ten round group at 100m
For more information on this subject please feel free to PM or email me.
well said progod! that's no bull
Defensive Carbine accuracy is pretty much irrelevant, as long as it's not completely awful.
IMO, you get a sight in order to make acquisition quicker and more reliable.
If you can afford it, I think a Defensive Carbine needs a sling, a light and an unmagnified red dot sight. Personally, I like the Aimpoint micros for their small size and 5 year battery life.
You need to be able to hit the vital zone of your selected target at the maximum distance you might engage said target. This will dictate your MOA reqquirement.
Shooting bad humans at 50 yds and in, you might be able to get away with 8-10 MOA. Shoot them at 200 yds and in, you'll probably need closer to 3-4 MOA.
So how big is your target and how far out do you need to engage?
My defensive rifle has, as of right now, fixed sights. Before I go spending money on an optic of any kind I want to know that I actually "need" one. I understand that an optic is likely to improve accuracy. That's not a topic I care to get into.
So from a fixed sight defensive Carbine what MOA should I be happy with?
Not what 20" NM gun can do but what is a realistic goal for Carbine.
I like to shoot/stock XM193 if that helps.
Thanks.
Me, sling, light, iron sites. At ranges I am most likely to use the gun, etc, I didn't see how the opitics was really going to assist greatly for my potential needs, and one can buy a lot of ammo for the cost of good optics, and bad optics is not an option.
I'm not a HSLD person with am M4 by any means, and find I can make quick accurate shots on man sized targets at 100 yards (with combat accuracy), which is 85 yards longer then any distance in my dwelling.
So, as I understand it, optics comes down to what's it going to be used for and why.
They do look might cool however, and if one has the $$$$, cool factor is fun too. :cool:
If you are talking about the mechanical accuracy of a carbine with irons I don't think you understand the advantage of an RDS. You will probably not shoot smaller groups off the bench with an RDS, you will probably be able to shoot faster and more accurately from unconventional positions, while moving, and in low light.
Have you had any formal carbine training?
Do you want what you will likely be able to get away with or want to be more cautious (that or simply get the bang for your buck)?
Really for a defensive weapon for a civilian something like 10MOA is generous for the likely situation. If you want to be more cautious or simply not feel jipped then stick to around 3-4 tops with the gun and ammo.
DeltaSierra
08-03-11, 19:07
I used to be a volunteer instructor with the Appleseed Program (http://www.appleseedinfo.org/) where the goal was for students to learn to shoot 4moa, with irons sights, or optics.
Considering what I learned there, as a student, and then later on when I was instructing, it seems to me that for general defensive shooting, an iron sighted carbine is sufficient.
I used to be a volunteer instructor with the Appleseed Program (http://www.appleseedinfo.org/) where the goal was for students to learn to shoot 4moa, with irons sights, or optics.
Considering what I learned there, as a student, and then later on when I was instructing, it seems to me that for general defensive shooting, an iron sighted carbine is sufficient.
A lot of things are 'sufficient', doesn't mean you can't make them better.
You need to be able to hit the vital zone of your selected target at the maximum distance you might engage said target. This will dictate your MOA reqquirement.
Shooting bad humans at 50 yds and in, you might be able to get away with 8-10 MOA. Shoot them at 200 yds and in, you'll probably need closer to 3-4 MOA.
So how big is your target and how far out do you need to engage?
I guess that I'm looking to know is what's the most I can expect out of my carbine with the ammo I have chosen to stock. Currently I'm right in there I guess. Most groups are just under 3" to slightly over 3" @ 100yds.
If it were a scoped rifle that would not be all that good, I know. But I guess it's fair to say that 3moa is good for a carbine? I have to admit, this is my only rifle with irons. I've always opted for glass on my other guns but like I said. I don't think I need one on this gun and honestly I'm kinda excited to learn and apply the RIBZ setup.
My main problem with shooting 100yds is that the front sight more than covers the bullseye that I'm shooting at. It seems that the front sight is about 9MOA in width. The issue is that I have to just pick a spot on the paper, memorize the sight picture, press the shot and repeat. So basically my groups move around a bit. I mean, I can shoot five, have a good group 2-3moa but the group may be 4 o-clock of the center. Shoot the next target have the same size group but the group moves to say 7 o-clock. It's virtually impossible to hit center of the bullseye. I know that this is not a target gun, and that being of a few inches of center for a defensive rifle is OK in the real world.
So if 3moa is thought as good then I'll work from there with my cadence.
And for the record, no I don't think I'll ever use a rifle defensively at 100yds.;) You have to watch what you say around here I've noticed or someone is likely to run with it.
Beat Trash
08-03-11, 20:38
For a lot of years I found iron sights to be "sufficient". But sufficient to me equates to minimum acceptable performance. Who wants to strive for mediocracy?
I bought an Aimpoint T-1 some time ago. While iron sights may still be sufficient, a quality RDO such as the T-1 is superior.
When you take the issues of shooting while moving, low light, ect. and add to the mix middle aged eyes, iron sights lose their appeal quickly. My concept of a "KISS" carbine includes an Aimpoint.
As to acceptable accuracy for a defensive carbine? My carbines are capable of greater accuracy than I would actually need. So I don't worry about the mechanical accuracy of the gun.
I guess that I'm looking to know is what's the most I can expect out of my carbine with the ammo I have chosen to stock. Currently I'm right in there I guess. Most groups are just under 3" to slightly over 3" @ 100yds.
If it were a scoped rifle that would not be all that good, I know. But I guess it's fair to say that 3moa is good for a carbine? I have to admit, this is my only rifle with irons. I've always opted for glass on my other guns but like I said. I don't think I need one on this gun and honestly I'm kinda excited to learn and apply the RIBZ setup.
My main problem with shooting 100yds is that the front sight more than covers the bullseye that I'm shooting at. It seems that the front sight is about 9MOA in width. The issue is that I have to just pick a spot on the paper, memorize the sight picture, press the shot and repeat. So basically my groups move around a bit. I mean, I can shoot five, have a good group 2-3moa but the group may be 4 o-clock of the center. Shoot the next target have the same size group but the group moves to say 7 o-clock. It's virtually impossible to hit center of the bullseye. I know that this is not a target gun, and that being of a few inches of center for a defensive rifle is OK in the real world.
So if 3moa is thought as good then I'll work from there with my cadence.
And for the record, no I don't think I'll ever use a rifle defensively at 100yds.;) You have to watch what you say around here I've noticed or someone is likely to run with it.
Sounds like what is to be expected without going more into a precision set up.
I go back and forth from irons to 4x. I usually switch to irons when I think my fundamentals might be slipping. Shoot with irons to still know I got it, then back because I can't see Jack without glasses and that 4x really helps.;)
Start with irons and worry about sights after a couple thousand downrange.
3-4 MOA within 100 yrds is good..but honestly...I did not have a top notch red dot but I prefer irons over red dots...with a good flash light...its perfect...... plus it all comes down to the shooter...dont be a "bench" fairy and come tell us that you can shoot 2MOA supported (that accuracy has very little to do with you and more so with the gun) and start shooting in positions you might find yourself in...on your back, kneeling, side, on the move ETC...run drills..........reason I say this because when there is a situation...the bad guy is not going to wait for you to set up, place a bag or sand bag/gun vise and squeeze the trigger...sorry I do not know your background and I might be saying things you already know:help: I just hate "bench fairy" shooting bragging
3-4 MOA within 100 yrds is good..but honestly...I did not have a top notch red dot but I prefer irons over red dots...with a good flash light...its perfect...... plus it all comes down to the shooter...dont be a "bench" fairy and come tell us that you can shoot 2MOA supported (that accuracy has very little to do with you and more so with the gun) and start shooting in positions you might find yourself in...on your back, kneeling, side, on the move ETC...run drills..........reason I say this because when there is a situation...the bad guy is not going to wait for you to set up, place a bag or sand bag/gun vise and squeeze the trigger...sorry I do not know your background and I might be saying things you already know:help: I just hate "bench fairy" shooting bragging
I understand your point. I think that you must have a reference to build from. That is why I asked what I should expect from my gun. Not knowing what is acceptable and trying to speed up and fire from various positions is foolish I think. If I needed to work on the fundamentals first I would. But from the sounds of things my fundamental are at an acceptable level. So now that I know that I will start working on various positions and speed.
Honestly I'm having a hard time trying to figure out if you were throwing insults at me or if you were speaking generally, :confused:
I'd love to have you clarify the "dont be a "bench" fairy and come tell us that you can shoot 2MOA supported" comment.
Skinny sight post + ghost ring = 10x more than adequate.
I would never insult you..sorry if thats how I might have came across.
About the bench fairy comment. I have a HUUUUUUUUUGE, personal problem when some people (especially at the range) start bragging how well they shoot WHILE THE GUN IS IN A VISE OR BI-POD OR BEAN BAG...then they report that they have shot sub 2MOA groupings....yes the GUN shot that, not the operator since all you had to do is pull the trigger.
Now, I am a practical guy. If you have a gun/rifle or whatever...you must practice and shoot the way you will defend yourself...the bad guy is not going to wait for you to sit down...get your bag/vise ready..set the gun in the vise, wait for you to get ready.
Now I am not saying that you shouldnt get your GUN sighted in the best you can...we all need to...but once the gun is sighted in...YOU must practice to get that accuracy while your on the move, in different positions UNSUPPORTED.
Perfect Example...I sighted my gun in with 5 shots 25m..good and nice...then I did a Zig Zag drill, all my shots were in the :suicide2: but two in the shoulder. I am not happy that I missed the two shots that hit the shoulder but I am way more impressed with such results when someone can do that...than the ones who go to a range and vise up everything they shoot and brag how well they grouped at 100yds while the gun DIDNT EVEN MOVE.
I AM NOT BASHING ON LONG DISTANCE SHOOTERS PAST 300+ yds
This is how I feel about having a tactical rifle at your disposal and not a toy. If you own one of these rifles, you must train PRACTICALLY AND TACTICALLY not BENCH FAIRY-LY......you can buy a $3000 AR but if you do not know how to handle it tactically what is the point of having a tactical rifle...get my point?
My best advice...sight in your rifle..and just perfect your grouping with drills that actually matter. FYI I have Fixed sights as well..less things to go wrong :) Dont worry about getting optics until you are perfect with irons
Alaskapopo
08-03-11, 23:33
I would never insult you..sorry if thats how I might have came across.
About the bench fairy comment. I have a HUUUUUUUUUGE, personal problem when some people (especially at the range) start bragging how well they shoot WHILE THE GUN IS IN A VISE OR BI-POD OR BEAN BAG...then they report that they have shot sub 2MOA groupings....yes the GUN shot that, not the operator since all you had to do is pull the trigger.
Now, I am a practical guy. If you have a gun/rifle or whatever...you must practice and shoot the way you will defend yourself...the bad guy is not going to wait for you to sit down...get your bag/vise ready..set the gun in the vise, wait for you to get ready.
Now I am not saying that you shouldnt get your GUN sighted in the best you can...we all need to...but once the gun is sighted in...YOU must practice to get that accuracy while your on the move, in different positions UNSUPPORTED.
Perfect Example...I sighted my gun in with 5 shots 25m..good and nice...then I did a Zig Zag drill, all my shots were in the :suicide2: but two in the shoulder. I am not happy that I missed the two shots that hit the shoulder but I am way more impressed with such results when someone can do that...than the ones who go to a range and vise up everything they shoot and brag how well they grouped at 100yds while the gun DIDNT EVEN MOVE.
I AM NOT BASHING ON LONG DISTANCE SHOOTERS PAST 300+ yds
This is how I feel about having a tactical rifle at your disposal and not a toy. If you own one of these rifles, you must train PRACTICALLY AND TACTICALLY not BENCH FAIRY-LY......you can buy a $3000 AR but if you do not know how to handle it tactically what is the point of having a tactical rifle...get my point?
My best advice...sight in your rifle..and just perfect your grouping with drills that actually matter
Shooting from a bench will let you know what the rifle is capable of. I do agree a lot of people (hunters come to mind around here) go out and sight in their gun from the bench and get some respectable groups and then plan do hit in the field from improvised positions and their are a lot of missed shots as a result. I generally only group shoot from the bench. I do drills from off hand, around barricades, kneeling and prone while timed. I am working on accuracy and speed. Shooting groups off hand gets boring fast. So I try to work these skills into what I might see in real life or at a match. I just purchases some MGM pesky poppers for use at the three gun matches I host and I plan on using them for practice quite a bit as well.
That all being said some days I enjoy working up a new load and relaxing from the bench and shooting 5 5 shot groups to test the new load or to check how the gun is doing. It still tests your fundamentals of trigger control, sight or optic placement, and follow through. Any time you pull the trigger is good so long as you are practicing good habits.
Pat
Shooting from a bench will let you know what the rifle is capable of. I do agree a lot of people (hunters come to mind around here) go out and sight in their gun from the bench and get some respectable groups and then plan do hit in the field from improvised positions and their are a lot of missed shots as a result. I generally only group shoot from the bench. I do drills from off hand, around barricades, kneeling and prone while timed. I am working on accuracy and speed. Shooting groups off hand gets boring fast. So I try to work these skills into what I might see in real life or at a match. I just purchases some MGM pesky poppers for use at the three gun matches I host and I plan on using them for practice quite a bit as well.
That all being said some days I enjoy working up a new load and relaxing from the bench and shooting 5 5 shot groups to test the new load or to check how the gun is doing. It still tests your fundamentals of trigger control, sight or optic placement, and follow through. Any time you pull the trigger is good so long as you are practicing good habits.
Pat
Agreed..but I think we both have experienced the "bench fairies" :):ph34r:
You will probably not shoot smaller groups off the bench with an RDS
I do. Did it just last week in fact. Shot a BCM 16" midlength upper with irons, a Centurion Arms 10.5" upper with R-1, and the same upper with it's irons. I consistently shot groups that were at least 50% smaller at 50 yards with the H-1 than I did with either sets of irons. Group sizes with the irons were pretty much identical with the two different uppers.
I shoot better groups with an RDS too. What really boggles my mind is that when I zero on the bench and then stand up and shoot like normal, I have to re adjust my windage. I shoot about 2 MOA to the right on the bench than I do standing, kneeling or prone.
I'm not a HSLD person with am M4 by any means, and find I can make quick accurate shots on man sized targets at 100 yards (with combat accuracy), which is 85 yards longer then any distance in my dwelling.
So, as I understand it, optics comes down to what's it going to be used for and why.
They do look might cool however, and if one has the $$$$, cool factor is fun too. :cool:
IMO RDS have nothing whatsoever to do with "looking cool" and I believe they are actually MORE important for the non-LE civilian shooter. RDS shine at improving target acquisition and target transition speed, and make the gun easier to shoot, as well as allowing one to keep their focus downrange which improves target discrimination as well as tracking. All seem like great skills to me for a homeowner looking to potentially employ a carbine against multiple attackers indoors, especially factoring in the likelihood that he's refusing to get training and not doing anything to maintain those skills.
variablebinary
08-04-11, 05:52
Can you put 3 shots into a chest sized target at 10 meters with a reasonable amount of speed even though you're scared and blurry eyed because you just woke up?
That's about all the accuracy you'll need for your average civilian encounter.
I love the stories with guys bragging about shooting 2MOA groups while doing a backflip out of a Jeep. I've never seen it, & don't ever expect to.
While I'm no super marksman, I've yet to shoot a group better than about 4MOA from a chrome lined 16" AR with XM193 type ammo from the bench with irons & about 6" standing (no sling).
Gotta love the internet!
Can you put 3 shots into a chest sized target at 10 meters with a reasonable amount of speed even though you're scared and blurry eyed because you just woke up?
That's about all the accuracy you'll need for your average civilian encounter.
This IS the hokey pokey.
X1000
IMO RDS have nothing whatsoever to do with "looking cool"
That's called a joke Mr Rob.:cool:
and I believe they are actually MORE important for the non-LE civilian shooter.
Hence my comments that the setup I use is specific to me and my recs, and not a generalized statement regarding iron sites vs RDS. RDS are found on many many guns of people with FAR more experience and knowledge then myself, so clearly not a fad or "tacti-cool" device.
But, many have them on their AR because they look cool, all the cool kids have them, etc,
At the same time, you have many who might be far better off spending their $$$ on ammo and range work vs expensive optics. You don't agree with that thought? I, as you do, know plenty of people with expensive optics on their tricked out AR who probably put 100rnds per year through them and if they ever actually need to use them in an SD situation, will be doing so from perhaps 10-15 yards max.
RDS shine at improving target acquisition and target transition speed, and make the gun easier to shoot, as well as allowing one to keep their focus downrange which improves target discrimination as well as tracking. All seem like great skills to me for a homeowner looking to potentially employ a carbine against multiple attackers indoors, especially factoring in the likelihood that he's refusing to get training and not doing anything to maintain those skills.
No disagreement from me. However, you have many who are now under the impression that unless the AR has some RDS on it, it's a useless hunk of metal you can't hit sh%$ with, etc.
I enjoy AR with RDS, but I feel more then able to hit targets at SD ranges and for many, would rather see them spend that $$$ (as a quality RDS aint cheap) on ammo and a course or two.
I have been working with relatively new shooters at our drills nights for the last 4+ years and matches for 6+. I base my comments off of what I see with them.
many of them are not going to go get training in a multi-day format. It's just not going to happen. In many cases it's like pulling teeth to get them to come out on one Tuesday night a month for 4 hours and spend $20-25. So the "ammo and training" argument, while often a truism, falls flat in many cases when put up against the realities of the world.
Unlike the two-stage "i can't hit shit without spending another $200" trigger crowd, an RDS has a real, measurable, increase in performance at the distances where a homeowner is likely to utilize a carbine (in the very, very, rare instance where they might do so). Factor in stress, reduced lighting, a need to identify and discriminate targets (and the consequences of failing to do so), etc. and the RDS is a no-brainer. Fact is that while a light is a necessity, an RDS also improves the effectiveness of the light and they work phenomenally well in conjunction with one another.
if people prefer irons that is of course their prerogative, and as long as they aren't responsible for my life I frankly don't give a damn, but this neo-retro thing of "I'm good enough with irons" that is being doled out as advice is dangerous IMO.
I have yet to see a shooter who is proficient with irons (and we have several) that does not improve in terms of speed and accuracy at CQB distances with an RDS and a minimum of familiarization. If that same shooting ISN'T going to go take a class anyway, I think he's much better off buying an RDS than a new set of golf clubs if he has ANY delusions about using it as a defensive tool in the home.
Think about how a fight in the home with a carbine is likely to go down, and all the actors likely to be involved, and I don't see how the RDS is even negotiable.
Disregard all of the above if the AR is not part of your HD arsenal. If that is the case I suggest a variable power optic and a two-stage trigger, they seem to be all the rage at the range.
I feel more then able to hit targets at SD ranges
If I had a nickle for every time I heard this...
and then I turn off the lights, offer them multiple targets and non-threat targets on the move and/or behind cover, have them run the stage blind, simulate shooting under the bed from the support side, and it all goes to shit. and we haven't even addressed having the targets shoot back.
Being able to "hit targets" either at the static range or running the latest drills from youstube is not the same thing.
My defensive rifle has, as of right now, fixed sights. Before I go spending money on an optic of any kind I want to know that I actually "need" one. I understand that an optic is likely to improve accuracy. That's not a topic I care to get into.
So from a fixed sight defensive Carbine what MOA should I be happy with?
Not what 20" NM gun can do but what is a realistic goal for Carbine.
I like to shoot/stock XM193 if that helps.
Thanks.
To the original poster, I just purchased a Stag Model 3 most of my shooting as a bench fairy(:)has been with bolt action target rifle my only shooting of an AR was in the Military in the 60's.
I was interested in what accuracy I could achieve with a 16 inch barrel AR so I mounted a 20x weaver using commerical walmart grade ammo normal groups were 2.0-2.50, however after working up loads using Reloader 7 with Sierra 52 grain match bullets I'm seeing some groups of .875, so the gun is capable of 1.0 moa with quality ammo.
Honestly I would consider anything under 3.0 @100 yards good with a standard carbine with commerical ammo.
I did not buy it for target accuracy and will switch to my eotech after testing some more loads. The combination of the Stag/eotech makes for a nice light weight set up.
Can you put 3 shots into a chest sized target at 10 meters with a reasonable amount of speed even though you're scared and blurry eyed because you just woke up?
That's about all the accuracy you'll need for your average civilian encounter.
Agreed. And do it with whatever you are competent and comfortable with whether it be irons or RDS.
For me, RDS is the only way to go because of my poor eyesight. My Aimpoint helps me tremendously.
I wear glasses all the time. Can't see without them. I've even went so far as to do some shooting without my glasses. (Thinking of a middle of the night ordeal and don't have time to grab glasses) At 15 yds, shooting quickly, I can hit an IDPA target with the irons but impacts are all over the place. Not so with the RDS. I can put all rounds in center mass and that is what you want.
I do. Did it just last week in fact.
I've always had close to the same size groups when I zero at 25-50 but slightly better with irons out past 100. Maybe I try harder with irons at longer range. My irons shooting has been mostly "traditional" while the RDS shooting has been combat/SD focused, with a mindset of balancing accuracy and speed.
100 yards with Bench and front bag and 3MOA red dot
http://executiveprotectionservice.us/forums/556/71011/100ydRedDot.jpg
100 yards with Bench and front bag and my MBUS with 12" sight radius
http://executiveprotectionservice.us/forums/556/100yardsMBUS.jpg
100 yards kneeling and standing with IRONS.. VERY FAST SHOOTING..
http://executiveprotectionservice.us/forums/556/7911/100yards.jpg
did it with this.. DPMS Lower and 16" PSA Upper with 1/7..
http://executiveprotectionservice.us/forums/PSA/PSAFDrab.jpg
I figure 4-6" with irons at 100 yards and 3-5" with RDS..
I prefer just DOA target :)
mkmckinley
08-04-11, 12:49
A 1X red dot optic isn't about making you more accurate, it's about making you faster. Someone once said the key to winning a gunfight is being as accurate as you have to as fast as you can. Shooting groups or military qualifications doesn't have much real-world application to combat shooting, especially where a civilian is concerned. The red dot is going to make you faster at getting rounds on target and it's also going to be easier to use under stress as well as being no-light visible. I guess it's a personal choice but to me it's worth every penny.
Being able to "hit targets" either at the static range or running the latest drills from youstube is not the same thing.
Never claimed it was. You should know me better then that by now.
Never claimed it was. You should know me better then that by now.
No, not you, but I hear this all the time at the range. "I don't understand why I'm not hitting the 10" steel target at 50 yards shooting Brokeback prone under a barricade at night when I shot 4" groups all day long from the bench at 100." A RDS will make this easier.
If we establish that we need a tool for defensive purposes, and we acknowledge the reality of that application, we should want the best tools we can find for that application. "Good Enough" for me does not exist. I shot a rifle stage (https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1O61M2SYnIW9lDJey7kdsH7ot_F8NAclhIXnLZ47x-Js) with irons this past weekend in 17.x seconds with no target further away than 50 yards (I didn't post my time because I was running the stage and didn't want the appearance of doing anything below board, plus I didn't care about the plaque). The Master class shooter (shooting in Expert) that shot it best did it in 16.x seconds. The next closest competitor to me was 21.00 seconds. This does not mean that to me irons are "good enough" as ALL of us could have shot it faster with an RDS.
prodgi
Your 3MOA at 100 yards will cover 90% of your SD needs! Your still on a man sized target at 200 yards so unless your in a war zone your GTG. In a House or yard SD shoot 50 yards or less your cherry! Don't going buying into all the hipe on Optics! They are nice but not needed for your purpose! Save your money buy more ammo and practice!:D
Unlike the two-stage "i can't hit shit without spending another $200" trigger crowd,...
You keep repeating this statement but I have yet to be able to find one single post on this forum where someone actually claims this. The spin never stops.:rolleyes:
As to shooting RDS better than iron, I too shoot my carbine more accurately with RDS than irons because the front sight on a standard carbine is much wider than say a NM front sight used in CMP competitions.
The OP was asking about the mechanical accuracy to be expected from a carbine so the "bench fairy" references seem out of place. If someone (outside of the competition rifle environment) were to say they shot a 1.5" group at 100 yard I would assume they did it from a bench.
As to the accuracy I get from my carbine -
I have sighted my LE6920 in with every lot of ammo and have been able to shoot 1" to 1.5" groups (off a bench of course) at 50 yards using xm193. xm855, and ae223, a 3.5moa red dot, FF barrel, and a Geissele trigger. I was able to shoot those group with the stock trigger but it is much easier now.
I found the xm193 to be the most accurate; slightly better than ae223 and much better than xm855. Also, I never sight in with a clean barrel as the POI will shift in as little as 5 rounds.
Here is how my rifle shoots at 100 yards with xm193 from a bench with a rest and sandbags. Its the only 100 target I kept and is the best group I was able to manage with surplus ammo. The RD covered out to the 9 1/2 ring:
9288
Get an unmagnified optic! It's a no-brainer. If you have the possibility try taking a class which runs some simunition drills. Even if you know they're harmless except for some pain stress levels go way up. You become very "target oriented". Anything that will help you deal with that stress (e.g. not having to line up your iron sights) will be extremly helpful. And as Rob said: You always tend to end up in strange positions in low light where aquiring iron sights gets even harder. Iron sights have their place too, but on a fighting rifle in the year 2011 IMO they are for backup-purposes. A modern QUALITY red dot is rugged and can be relied up on to such extent that I think that it should be your primary sight.
I'm sure there are a lot of people who are very good with their iron sights, but I'm equally sure that they would be even better under talked about conditions using an unmagnified optic.
Alaskapopo
08-04-11, 15:20
Get an unmagnified optic! It's a no-brainer. If you have the possibility try taking a class which runs some simunition drills. Even if you know they're harmless except for some pain stress levels go way up. You become very "target oriented". Anything that will help you deal with that stress (e.g. not having to line up your iron sights) will be extremly helpful. And as Rob said: You always tend to end up in strange positions in low light where aquiring iron sights gets even harder. Iron sights have their place too, but on a fighting rifle in the year 2011 IMO they are for backup-purposes. A modern QUALITY red dot is rugged and can be relied up on to such extent that I think that it should be your primary sight.
I'm sure there are a lot of people who are very good with their iron sights, but I'm equally sure that they would be even better under talked about conditions using an unmagnified optic.
If you could get simunitions to be accurate past room distance you might see the value in a good variable scope. The optic a person choses is a personal choice. RDS sights work fine at close range but for more versatility I prefer a good low power variable. To each his own.
Pat
...But, many have them on their AR because they look cool, all the cool kids have them, etc,
At the same time, you have many who might be far better off spending their $$$ on ammo and range work vs expensive optics...
I think perhaps you pose a false dilemma. FWIW, I strongly believe that if forced to choose between a $500 red dot *or* $500 worth of ammo (that is subsequently expended in productive fashion, not stored in the basement nor blasted away willy-nilly) that virtually everyone would be better off with the latter. Training trumps technology virtually every time.
But as everyone seems to agree, most folks aren't going to put that many rounds downrange. As such, they'd probably be better off spending the money on a good sight.
The ideal answer, IMHO, is to do both.
(But I'm probably talking out my @$$, as neither of my ARs wears a red dot at the moment. The nighttime pests I'm dealing with these days are of the 4-legged variety, so the only RDS I own is currently mounted on one of my .22s. I need to buy another, but I keep missing the big Aimpoint sales, it seems.)
He would probably be better served by getting a good light and mount and a sling as well as some training.
Which assumes that these things are somehow mutually exclusive, and they are not. One can purchase an optic AND get training. additionally, if training is not available for a variety of reasons, the money would be better spent on an optic than on a new set of golf clubs.
Aren't you the one that says you don't believe in budgets?
Alaskapopo
08-04-11, 17:17
Why do people think you have to chose between training (shooting) and having good equipment. You can do both. As for triggers if you think having a heavier trigger pull is better knock yourself out. However a skilled shooter with a good trigger will be able to hit his targets easier and faster than a skilled shooter using a heavier trigger. But we have covered this before.
pat
I think some people need to re-read what the OP was asking. He wanted to know does HE NEED and optic.
The answer is no. He would probably be better served by getting a good light and mount and a sling as well as some training.
I thought we already had a few irons vs. the world threads...
My defensive rifle has, as of right now, fixed sights. Before I go spending money on an optic of any kind I want to know that I actually "need" one. I understand that an optic is likely to improve accuracy. That's not a topic I care to get into.
So from a fixed sight defensive Carbine what MOA should I be happy with?
Not what 20" NM gun can do but what is a realistic goal for Carbine.
I like to shoot/stock XM193 if that helps.
Thanks.
The problem with the OP's question is, he seems to equate "need" with accuracy. I think we can all agree, one can be very accurate with iron sights.
Unfortunately, accuracy, is only part o the problem. And an optic, such as an Aimpoint, is not really directed at "accuracy" as much as it is directed at speed, and ease of engagement in non standard positions, on the move, limited visibility, etc.
I spent a lot of time shooting M16a1's, M16a2's, M16a2 carbines, CAR15's and M4's with iron sights, so I'm no stranger to them, I've been known to shoot tighter groups with them.....laying down and zeroing.
I spend a lot of time now, shooting M4's with EoTech's and Aimpoints....under various conditions, like...on the move, limited visibility, non standard positions, Pro-mask and SCBA, etc etc. There is absolutely no question that a RDS is not only better under these conditions, but I would go so far as to say essential.
Your accuracy "needs" are different then your "expectations" so, rather then say, "when I can shoot XX moa, I'll move to an optic", or "when I master irons, then I can move to an optic"(whatever "master" means)
perhaps the question should be, what accuracy do I need, and under what conditions am I expected to deliver that accuracy?
Then, one can go about setting him/her self up for success under those conditions. If that means a RDS/variable mag. optic, a better trigger(why is a tuned 1911 trigger a good thing, but a tuned M4 trigger is bad??), FF forend, SF light, etc. so be it. Then set about acquiring what you need(equipment & training) to be successful in your mission.
No where is it written that the acquisition of an optic or tuned trigger automatically absolves you of the need to apply the fundamentals of marksmanship.
While many will boohoo about irons teaching you the importance of "cheekweld", sight alignment, sight picture, head position, stance, blah blah blah, I submit....Who F'in cares! An Aimpoint will all but eliminate the importance of such minutia that will not be employed under most "combat" type conditions. Such that they are now the de facto sight with most any organizations who's primary mission is shooting under such conditions.
I've also yet to see a good argument for learning irons first.
Mr. Falla gave an excellent post, and I assume his marksmanship standards are for a somewhat rested gun, on a static range, doing zeroing type exercises.
I once asked Larry Vickers about accuracy requirements, and wish i could recall them exactly, but as I remember, he said with a typical defensive type carbine and ammo, you should be able to hit the 5.5" NRA bull, standing at 50mtrs, and prone at 100mtrs.
Another way to look at it:
Pat Rogers designed targets utilize an 8" circle, "between the nipples"
Paul Howes designed target utilizes a 6" by 12"(?) rectangle down the center(IPSC A zone)(he gives no points for hits outside this)
Vickers designed target utilizes a 5.5" bull( he's used the NRA bull for a long time)
Jim Smith utilizes NRA 5.5" bulls
So, 4 well known and respected instructors utilize a "max scoring" ring of 5.5 to 8 inches across, so lets call 6.5 inches.
So, it would seem to me, the minimum accuracy you require would be....to be able to hit a 6.5" circle at whatever the max effective range of your weapon is. For the carbine, most accept 200-250mtrs as the true max effective range. Under all conditions.
If an Aimpoint, Geisselle trigger and FF rail help you do that, drive the F**K on.
Perhaps we should require new Soldiers to stand on line and fire volley's from muskets, before we "allow" them repeaters?
Bob
[QUOTE=Iraqgunz;1066335]I think some people need to re-read what the OP was asking. He wanted to know does HE NEED and optic.
QUOTE]
Well I guess I did say that but that's not what I meant. I will be the one, the only one that is. That is going to determine if I "need" an optic. Anymore I find it impossible to trust my life or the life of my family with what I read on line from who knows who. If I was speaking face to face with a respected instructor and he told me what works and what don't that's one thing.
My focus for the last few years on training and thus my proficiency is with handguns. Yes I understand their limits. I will not have a rifle as a primary weapon until I feel that I'm as good or better with it than a handgun. I would however use a rifle defend myself and family from a barricaded room.
No offense but everyone's "need's" are different. I very much understand that in todays world guy's would opt for toys over training. That is a sad truth.
I have at least one more pistol class to take before I'll get any carbine training. In the mean time I want to hone my skills the best I can without creating bad habits that I'll have to overcome in class. So if 3moa is GTG. That is what I'll keep as a standard that I use to evaluate myself.
Thanks all for the input. I am enjoying the info. Lot's of smart guys around here.
I thought we already had a few irons vs. the world threads...
The problem with the OP's question is, he seems to equate "need" with accuracy. I think we can all agree, one can be very accurate with iron sights.
Unfortunately, accuracy, is only part o the problem. And an optic, such as an Aimpoint, is not really directed at "accuracy" as much as it is directed at speed, and ease of engagement in non standard positions, on the move, limited visibility, etc.
I spent a lot of time shooting M16a1's, M16a2's, M16a2 carbines, CAR15's and M4's with iron sights, so I'm no stranger to them, I've been known to shoot tighter groups with them.....laying down and zeroing.
I spend a lot of time now, shooting M4's with EoTech's and Aimpoints....under various conditions, like...on the move, limited visibility, non standard positions, Pro-mask and SCBA, etc etc. There is absolutely no question that a RDS is not only better under these conditions, but I would go so far as to say essential.
Your accuracy "needs" are different then your "expectations" so, rather then say, "when I can shoot XX moa, I'll move to an optic", or "when I master irons, then I can move to an optic"(whatever "master" means)
perhaps the question should be, what accuracy do I need, and under what conditions am I expected to deliver that accuracy?
Then, one can go about setting him/her self up for success under those conditions. If that means a RDS/variable mag. optic, a better trigger(why is a tuned 1911 trigger a good thing, but a tuned M4 trigger is bad??), FF forend, SF light, etc. so be it. Then set about acquiring what you need(equipment & training) to be successful in your mission.
No where is it written that the acquisition of an optic or tuned trigger automatically absolves you of the need to apply the fundamentals of marksmanship.
While many will boohoo about irons teaching you the importance of "cheekweld", sight alignment, sight picture, head position, stance, blah blah blah, I submit....Who F'in cares! An Aimpoint will all but eliminate the importance of such minutia that will not be employed under most "combat" type conditions. Such that they are now the de facto sight with most any organizations who's primary mission is shooting under such conditions.
I've also yet to see a good argument for learning irons first.
Mr. Falla gave an excellent post, and I assume his marksmanship standards are for a somewhat rested gun, on a static range, doing zeroing type exercises.
I once asked Larry Vickers about accuracy requirements, and wish i could recall them exactly, but as I remember, he said with a typical defensive type carbine and ammo, you should be able to hit the 5.5" NRA bull, standing at 50mtrs, and prone at 100mtrs.
Another way to look at it:
Pat Rogers designed targets utilize an 8" circle, "between the nipples"
Paul Howes designed target utilizes a 6" by 12"(?) rectangle down the center(IPSC A zone)(he gives no points for hits outside this)
Vickers designed target utilizes a 5.5" bull( he's used the NRA bull for a long time)
Jim Smith utilizes NRA 5.5" bulls
So, 4 well known and respected instructors utilize a "max scoring" ring of 5.5 to 8 inches across, so lets call 6.5 inches.
So, it would seem to me, the minimum accuracy you require would be....to be able to hit a 6.5" circle at whatever the max effective range of your weapon is. For the carbine, most accept 200-250mtrs as the true max effective range. Under all conditions.
If an Aimpoint, Geisselle trigger and FF rail help you do that, drive the F**K on.
Perhaps we should require new Soldiers to stand on line and fire volley's from muskets, before we "allow" them repeaters?
Bob
Um, WOW that was a great post.
You gotta watch Moran, he'll spit out some jewels sometimes! Good stuff Bob.
Scotter260
08-04-11, 23:41
I once asked Larry Vickers about accuracy requirements, and wish i could recall them exactly, but as I remember, he said with a typical defensive type carbine and ammo, you should be able to hit the 5.5" NRA bull, standing at 50mtrs, and prone at 100mtrs.
Another way to look at it:
Pat Rogers designed targets utilize an 8" circle, "between the nipples"
Paul Howes designed target utilizes a 6" by 12"(?) rectangle down the center(IPSC A zone)(he gives no points for hits outside this)
Vickers designed target utilizes a 5.5" bull( he's used the NRA bull for a long time)
Jim Smith utilizes NRA 5.5" bulls
So, 4 well known and respected instructors utilize a "max scoring" ring of 5.5 to 8 inches across, so lets call 6.5 inches.
So, it would seem to me, the minimum accuracy you require would be....to be able to hit a 6.5" circle at whatever the max effective range of your weapon is. For the carbine, most accept 200-250mtrs as the true max effective range. Under all conditions.
Bob
Thank you for answering a question I had that went unasked. Very, very informative for me.
[QUOTE=Iraqgunz;1066335]I think some people need to re-read what the OP was asking. He wanted to know does HE NEED and optic.
QUOTE]
Well I guess I did say that but that's not what I meant. I will be the one, the only one that is. That is going to determine if I "need" an optic. Anymore I find it impossible to trust my life or the life of my family with what I read on line from who knows who. If I was speaking face to face with a respected instructor and he told me what works and what don't that's one thing.
My focus for the last few years on training and thus my proficiency is with handguns. Yes I understand their limits. I will not have a rifle as a primary weapon until I feel that I'm as good or better with it than a handgun. I would however use a rifle defend myself and family from a barricaded room.
No offense but everyone's "need's" are different. I very much understand that in todays world guy's would opt for toys over training. That is a sad truth.
I have at least one more pistol class to take before I'll get any carbine training. In the mean time I want to hone my skills the best I can without creating bad habits that I'll have to overcome in class. So if 3moa is GTG. That is what I'll keep as a standard that I use to evaluate myself.
Thanks all for the input. I am enjoying the info. Lot's of smart guys around here.
one of the things touched upon above is no, you don't need an RDS (red dot sight) on a gun for your purposes. but it makes it easier and usually quicker to shoot.
in order to shoot iron sights, your eye has to be in a near perfect position each time. you don't get much leeway side to side and the front sight will disappear from the ring. with a RDS, you have greater latitude where you position your eye behind it and as long as you can see the dot on the target, the round will hit.
this makes it easier to shoot from unconventional positions such as on your back, shooting under or through inconvenient obstacles, with restrictive gear such as a mask or goggles, etc...
so no, in a perfect world such as a shooting range, you don't need a RDS, but it makes it a lot easier to get acceptable hits in a variety of conditions...
The CSAT kill box is 6" wide by about 24" long top to bottom the COM portion is right around 16" tall.
I personally prefer using the top 6" of the COM box, so a 6" square. Paul himself has stated that this high thoracic area is where we should be aiming if possible.
To add to the the target list
Kyle Lambs VTAC targets use an 8" square for COM if I recall correctly
Alan Brosnan wants a fist size group (call it a 4"x6" zone)
Pat McNamara uses an NRA pistol bull for a lot of things (5.5")
To address the general topic of discussion:
A lot of people have been put in the ground using iron sights, hell a lot of people have been killed without any sights being involved. However as a civilian shooter (that includes LE) you have to account for every single round fired. Irons allow for very precise shot placement out to the limits of your weapon and your ability to determine range and wind correction. An RDS sight does the same. Irons however do not tolerate poor stock weld, or improper eye relief nearly as well as a good RDS. Not saying you can't learn to shoot from a variety of positions with irons, it will however take a lot of practice to get good at it. An RDS is much more tolerant of eye relief, stock weld, etc. which allows you to shoot from odd positions well with much less practice. Regardless of your choice of sights learning to shoot from unconventional positions will require practice. At anything beyond CQB distances (about 25 yds or so), your rounds will do odd things (in comparison to what your used to) when your rifle is canted to the extreme (roll over prone, broke back, etc).
If you can maintain a 6" group or so out to 300 yds in the COM area from prone in slow fire, you ready to move on from slow fire prone shooting. You have the basic skills needed to engage a target successfully at distance, now it's time to learn how to engage a target in non-conventional positions.
-Jenrick
The answer is no. He would probably be better served by getting a good light and mount and a sling as well as some training.
Why are they mutually exclusive? Are you not the one that tells people that they shouldn't have a budget? What, outside of budget, would drive one to be stuck making a choice between training and optics?
The CSAT kill box is 6" wide by about 24" long top to bottom the COM portion is right around 16" tall.
I personally prefer using the top 6" of the COM box, so a 6" square. Paul himself has stated that this high thoracic area is where we should be aiming if possible.
To add to the the target list
Kyle Lambs VTAC targets use an 8" square for COM if I recall correctly
Alan Brosnan wants a fist size group (call it a 4"x6" zone)
Pat McNamara uses an NRA pistol bull for a lot of things (5.5")
Copy on Howes target. He also states that his "kill box" represents a man standing sideways.
IIRC, Hackathorn, generally uses a spread palm as general rule of thumb.
And to add to it, I once shot a qual with Albuquerque Swat, called the Neil Terry Qual, Neil is a legend with that dept. The Head shot was about the size of a credit card, and the torso shot, was about the size of a notebook page. Hits outside of those had no value, and you got no closer to the target then 15yds/mtrs. That was with a pistol though., but it illustrates the emphasis placed on accuracy.
Bob
I think some people need to re-read what the OP was asking. He wanted to know does HE NEED and optic.
The answer is no. He would probably be better served by getting a good light and mount and a sling as well as some training.
I said that! :D
Randy Cain's target is both the best, and the most strict, that I've worked with. I wish he was more into the marketing side and made them more readily available. It is an evolution of the Louis Awerbuck target, which is itself an evolution of the Gunsite target.
the head has an ocular/nasal cavity, and the chest has a fist-sized "A-zone", with larger zones around it. The pattern is camo so you can't make out the zone lines, and the back is covered in reduced size, zero, and other useful targets.
If you can maintain a 6" group or so out to 300 yds in the COM area from prone in slow fire, you ready to move on from slow fire prone shooting.
-Jenrick
I find this interesting, because it is my understanding that for many rifles with "practice" ammo (steel cased, xm855, etc) this is the rifle's inherent accuracy.
Attempts to further increase accuracy could be limited by the rifle not the rifleman?
I find this interesting, because it is my understanding that for many rifles with "practice" ammo (steel cased, xm855, etc) this is the rifle's inherent accuracy.
Attempts to further increase accuracy could be limited by the rifle not the rifleman?
I've found XM193 in a milspec barrel to be 3 MOA ammo, which means I would have a hard time holding to his accuracy standard at 300 yards.
rob_s,
You have either misunderstood me or you are twisting my words. When I speak about "budget" and not cutting corners, I am referring to the build of the weapon. The weapon is the most important part because without it, the sling and light and sight are worthless.
I believe that if you read every post I have made on the subject I have always maintained consistency. Which is that should you choose to use an AR (example) as a fighting/ home defense weapon then you need a sling and light at a minimum.
Is a sight unit (insert choice here) necessary? No, it's not. And before we had them on every weapon known to mankind and when I entered the military we used iron sight and they were pretty effective. I am not saying that one shouldn't purchase one. I am saying that I would spend my money on something like ammo, magazines and training. If you can't feed it and shoot it the sight won't help you.
You can save money and then purchase one down the road and then progress from there.
Why are they mutually exclusive? Are you not the one that tells people that they shouldn't have a budget? What, outside of budget, would drive one to be stuck making a choice between training and optics?
Insh'Allah.
These are your words
If you are not saying that one must make a choice between an optic and sling/light/training then I misunderstood. If you are saying that they must make a choice, I disagree.
You have either misunderstood me or you are twisting my words.
These are your words
He would probably be better served by getting a good light and mount and a sling as well as some training.
If you are not saying that one must make a choice between an optic and sling/light/training then I misunderstood. If you are saying that they must make a choice, I disagree.
Rob Pincus discusses the concept of "Combat Accuracy" in this clip...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM2BRVTxvH0
.
I heard a lot of blah blah blah, and nothing that pins down, what size target you need to be able to hit.
Bob
Rob Pincus
08-05-11, 16:39
R Moran,
That's because it is impossible to know... Precisely... The target will dictate that at the moment. Could be a 3" circle inthe face, could be a 10x12 rectangle on a torso, etc, etc.... All you can do is train for a reasonable range of plausible target sizes.
Try this (somewhat old)clip to get a better understanding of the concept of the Balance of Speed & Precision (http://video.personaldefensenetwork.com/video/The-Balance-Between-Speed-and-3;search:balance%20speed%20precision). Anyone who tells you to shoot at X" target is going to be shooting at an average or, worse, defaulting to the smallest plausible target, which means you'll often be training to shoot slower that you might be able to in an actual fight.
Here's an article version of the BoS&P (http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/articles/defensive-firearm-training/shooting-balance-of-speed-and-precision/) also...
Lastly, here is an actual demo of the concept in action at a defensive pistol match, showing the different pacing possible at different sizes of plausible defense targets at the same distance: BoS&P Demo (http://video.personaldefensenetwork.com/video/Balance-of-Speed-Precision;search:balance%20speed%20precision)
-RJP
Submariner
08-05-11, 16:54
Is a sight unit (insert choice here) necessary? No, it's not. And before we had them on every weapon known to mankind and when I entered the military we used iron sight and they were pretty effective. I am not saying that one shouldn't purchase one. I am saying that I would spend my money on something like ammo, magazines and training. If you can't feed it and shoot it the sight won't help you.
You can save money and then purchase one down the road and then progress from there.
On the other hand, you could take your carbine, tactical sling (did you tell us about your sling?) and light to a two- or three-day class with Pat Rogers. He will explain to you how much more efficient an RDS is and lend you a T-1/M4 for your carbine. I have witnessed him doing this. (If you are contemplating purchasing an optic someday, it is likely you will have a flat top upper; do you?) Your use of the proffered RDS will make not only make your learning and his life easier, it will help your class proceed more efficiently as well, to the benefit of all the students.
If you come with an A2 upper he can probably lend you a carbine with an RDS. Just so you spend less time "romancing the sights" and learning mindset, manipulation and marksmanship.
Either way, you will more likely than not get more out of the training and see the value in cutting something out of your budget to fund an Aimpoint.
Today there is a 4-MOA Aimpoint C3 (rated 50,000 hours) with an LT150 mount, plus goodies, for $400 on TOS's EE, FWIW. You might consider a Dave Ramsey-style yard sale (all the stuff that you have but don't "need") to fund a class (already in your budget?) AND an Aimpoint.
You can practice most everything you learned in class with irons on your own time while generating the cash for the Aimpoint.
I find this interesting, because it is my understanding that for many rifles with "practice" ammo (steel cased, xm855, etc) this is the rifle's inherent accuracy.
Attempts to further increase accuracy could be limited by the rifle not the rifleman?
I prefer the 6" group for a couple of reasons.
1) It's an easy size to find targets for. Conventional pistol bulleyes you can buy at Walmart are sold in that size in packs of 100.
2) It's a realistic size of the vital area on the human torso. If you center the bull just above the nipple line, you'll bit hitting the: heart it self, the aortic arches, the top of the lungs, the spine, etc. It also effectively simulates the vascular structures located in the pelvic area. The 6" area, is one where even .22 holes (assuming no fragmentation or expansion due to distance) are still going to cause significant damage. You can easily add an inch or two to the circle and still be impacting vital areas in either location.
3) At a flat range, you can easily work on shooting on 6" bullseyes, even if the range wont allow human/humanoid targets.
If your rifle won't hold a 6" group at 300, find out what range it will hold that standard at. Now you know the combat effective range of your rifle. If that happens to be 250 yds so be it, that sure beats bad breath distance. You can now make informed decisions about how far out you will engage a threat. If you have to engage a threat beyond that distance you know that you WILL have to send multiple rounds to ensure a good hit in the vitals.
Also to clarify, I'm not stating that all a shooter should do is train at the 300 yd line until they can hold a 6" group. I'm saying once they can do that, they have met the standard for shooting prone groups. The same with shooting at 7yds or 100 yds. If the standard is met, then work on other areas that can be improved. Practicing one round from the low ready at 7yds is never a bad thing, but if you can always beat your accuracy and time standard why not work on something else?
I've found XM193 in a milspec barrel to be 3 MOA ammo, which means I would have a hard time holding to his accuracy standard at 300 yards.
So now you know that attempting for a single round engagement at 300 yds is going to be problematic with your weapon and that ammunition. If a a 300 yd engagement is going to a mission requirement or reasonable real life occurrence, then you need to change something in the equation. Whether that's your rifle or your ammo is up to you.
All of us need to not loose sight of the fact that the mission drives the equipment. Everyone of us can benefit from periodically stepping back, and deciding what our mission is. Has it changed from the last time? Does my current weapon, ammo, and gear selection support the current mission or the old mission? What training, either sustainment or skill acquisition, should I be conducting to further my ability to complete the mission successfully. Here is where the determination on an optic or no comes into play. Very simply, does it help me accomplish my mission?
In response to the Balance of Speed and accuracy discussion: Try the following drill sometime with some mates. Using a 6" bull, have them fire as many rounds into the bull in 2 seconds as they can. The only catch is ANY round outside the bull scores a zero for the whole run. Now same setup, but any round outside the bull is simply not counted. The interesting thing is that most people will only score about half the hits on the first drill as they do the second. The target is the same size, and the distances are the same. There is however a perceived need for extra accuracy on the first drill.
-Jenrick
I frankly can't figure out why so many get so carried away with shooting at 200, let alone 300, to begin with.
It's actually something I spend very little time on, as my mission has a very minimal need for that ability. I choose to focus on other more mission relevant things the majority of the time. However I do think knowing just how far your rifle can go is something that every serious tactical shooter should know. The odds of needing to apply it are minimal I'd agree.
-Jenrick
I frankly can't figure out why so many get so carried away with shooting at 200, let alone 300, to begin with.
No offense but everyone's "need's" are different. I very much understand that in todays world guy's would opt for toys over training. That is a sad truth.
I have at least one more pistol class to take before I'll get any carbine training.
I don't think you will find many here that would recommend toys over training. In fact if you said you could only afford an RDS or a carbine class you would probably only get one answer.
It's good you intend to take carbine training, hopefully you can try out an RDS and get a better understanding of the advantage they have. You're right, it's better than second hand info.
If you intended to use your carbine for defense now I would recommend going straight to an RDS.
in my RIG in my SAW pouch.. I have a small 6x32 scope with QD rings for longer shots if needed..
I'm shooting about 3" at 200 yards off a simple front bag..
http://www.executiveprotectionservice.us/forums/556/73011/200scope2.jpg
My 223/556 AR rides now with a 3 MOA RDS and MBUS setup..
The RDS is equipped with a BIG screw to remove it, and the scope has QD mounts on it..
I can go from RDS to scope in under a minute.. so if the zombies are further out... darn tooten I'm putting on the scope for abit..
when I practice I do from 50 to 200 yards kneeling or standing, and also from a BAG (to check zero).. mostly just from the knee with mag changes and such.. this more than likely be my optimum shooting position.. keeping the shoot and move theory per se..
I run the RDS and also have a no frills Vertical Grip.. helps with the kneeling and blasting theory..
you can see my RIG is not small so going prone is not in my immediate best interests.. (I will be maybe going single layer for the mags.. and then I can go prone if needed..)
http://www.executiveprotectionservice.us/forums/PSA/PrimaryArmsM3.jpg
I started with irons on my Daisy PUMP bb gun back in 78..
I still thing the RDS for quick and accurate out to 250 is do-able..
I frankly can't figure out why so many get so carried away with shooting at 200, let alone 300, to begin with.
Rob, what are you going do to when you do encounter a threat at 200-300 yds? What if you're in your home when that happens? What are going to do, run? You know a long shot is possible even in an urban environment right? Have you ever tried it? It is quite challenging.
I live in a rural area and we are very isolated and I could see a threat coming from over a 1/4 mile away. I'd much rather engage a threat from 200-300 yds rather than wait until it's in my face if that was the situation. I certainly don't discount CQB shooting and training, I do that as well as long range. Probably 50/50. Every AR enthusiast that relies on the AR platform for defense should. IMO.
Not everyone thinks like you do Rob, get over it. Please.;)
Rob, what are you going do to when you do encounter a threat at 200-300 yds? What if you're in your home when that happens? What are going to do, run? You know a long shot is possible even in an urban environment right? Have you ever tried it? It is quite challenging.
I live in a rural area and we are very isolated and I could see a threat coming from over a 1/4 mile away. I'd much rather engage a threat from 200-300 yds rather than wait until it's in my face if that was the situation. I certainly don't discount CQB shooting and training, I do that as well as long range. Probably 50/50. Every AR enthusiast that relies on the AR platform for defense should. IMO.
I think thre reason Rob & others emphasize CQB shooting is that it is the closest thing to some type of home defense use of a longarm.
Exactly what type of a situation would a civilian short of some type of SHTF be shooting at someone at 200-300 yards away?
Not everyone thinks like you do Rob, get over it. Please.;)
Okay, you may have a point there.;)
Dirtyboy333
08-05-11, 19:59
Rob, what are you going do to when you do encounter a threat at 200-300 yds? What if you're in your home when that happens? What are going to do, run? You know a long shot is possible even in an urban environment right? Have you ever tried it? It is quite challenging.
I live in a rural area and we are very isolated and I could see a threat coming from over a 1/4 mile away. I'd much rather engage a threat from 200-300 yds rather than wait until it's in my face if that was the situation. I certainly don't discount CQB shooting and training, I do that as well as long range. Probably 50/50. Every AR enthusiast that relies on the AR platform for defense should. IMO.
Not everyone thinks like you do Rob, get over it. Please.;)
Agreed, i also train CQB but I can only shoot 7-25 freaking yards a few times before im ready to fall asleep.
In my area as well, a guy with only CQB skills would get picked off before he would even realize there's a threat. As much as i like these ninja drills (and i do practice them), their value is minimal (to me) compared to mid/long range proficiency. I guess it depends on your situation but any AR owner should at least experiment with longer ranges.
ETA: SHTF is about the only situation i would be using my AR for defense (and i think the likelihood of that eventually happening is pretty good). I will most likely only have time to grab my pistol for in-house defense (that discussions for another thread).
I frankly can't figure out why so many get so carried away with shooting at 200, let alone 300, to begin with.
I'm also somewhat confused by this topic and the interpretation of some people regarding the distances involved.
The original poster asked:
My defensive rifle has, as of right now, fixed sights. Before I go spending money on an optic of any kind I want to know that I actually "need" one. I understand that an optic is likely to improve accuracy. That's not a topic I care to get into.
So from a fixed sight defensive Carbine what MOA should I be happy with?
I would say that the standard is 5 shots inot 4 M.O.A. or roughly 4" at 100 yards. As long as my carbine shot into some version of this from prone or the bench (say 2" at 50 yards or 1" at 25 yards) I would call it good and move on from there.
If for whatever reason it could not do this, I would have someone else who is better than me try to shoot it to determine if it is me or the gun. My main concern would be that the gun should do performa minimum of what it is expected to do more than I as a civilian might need to put 5 shots into 4" at 100 yards in a defenseive shooting situation.
4x4twenty6
08-05-11, 20:41
If you want an optic, get one.
Will it make you a better, more accurate shooter? probably not.
I liked my Eotech, i think it was a great tool.
When it came down to shooting cqb with no rear sight, no eotech, just front sight on target, that worked just fine.
I am referring to my weapon, a fixed A2 front sight on an 11" barrel m4.
As long as you take into account point of aim point of impact is going to be different at very close range, say around 20 feet or closer just as an example; where the front sight post is on the target, the round will hit a few inches lower. If you were trying to attempt a close range head shot and you put that sight post on their forehead you are probably going to hit in the nose area. Take in to account the distance from top of the sight post to the barrel.
There are a lot of skilled guys on here that know this but just in case someone didnt consider this.
If I missed that someone already brought this up I apologize.
Alaska: Right on with the Eotech and drop similar to front sight post.
The Eotech being an electronic device, you shouldnt completely rely on it functioning. Murphy's Law. I know this from experience, those batteries tend to go out when you need it most. :sad:
Or even better, don't trust your life to a POS Eotech because you "like the reticle".
Buy an AimPoint and replace the batteries every couple years. BTDT.
Exactly what type of a situation would a civilian short of some type of SHTF be shooting at someone at 200-300 yards away?
I my area it would mean some type of documented civil unrest and an Chevy Impala with 20" rims headed my way.
4x4twenty6
08-05-11, 21:18
120mm: Just to clarify it was my fault on the Eotech.
I thought it worked fine when i made sure it had good batteries. Never thought of it as a POS but i only had it for about a year and half.
It was also department issued and I didnt trust my life to it, just another tool in the tool box.
I like the Aimpoint but never used one. I plan on trying one out when i get my new rifle.
I my area it would mean some type of documented civil unrest and an Chevy Impala with 20" rims headed my way.
Don't shoot until you see the shine of their bling bling! ;)
Alaskapopo
08-05-11, 21:43
If you want an optic, get one.
Will it make you a better, more accurate shooter? probably not.
I liked my Eotech, i think it was a great tool.
When it came down to shooting cqb with no rear sight, no eotech, just front sight on target, that worked just fine.
I am referring to my weapon, a fixed A2 front sight on an 11" barrel m4.
As long as you take into account point of aim point of impact is going to be different at very close range, say around 20 feet or closer just as an example; where the front sight post is on the target, the round will hit a few inches lower. If you were trying to attempt a close range head shot and you put that sight post on their forehead you are probably going to hit in the nose area. Take in to account the distance from top of the sight post to the barrel.
There are a lot of skilled guys on here that know this but just in case someone didnt consider this.
If I missed that someone already brought this up I apologize.
That is the same issue with any optic at close range as well with an AR. Its due to the sighting plane being 2.7 inches higher than the bore. When you use your Eotech you still need to account for the off set at close range just like you do with irons.
As for Robs long range comments. Stuff happens and you need to be prepared for it. back in the 1980's a killer was sniping people in the woods with a hunting rifle. The bad guy usually determines the range at which you will engage him when you are the defender. CBQ skills are essential but they are not the only skills you should practice. Same with handgun. I know instructors who say you should only practice at 7 yards because most pistol fights happen there or closer but I also know of a Trooper who killed someone shooting at him 35 yards away with his pistol. If you train for the norm you will be un-prepared for the extreme when it happens.
Pat
4x4twenty6
08-05-11, 21:56
Alaska: Right on with the Eotech and drop similar to front sight post.
The Eotech being an electronic device, you shouldnt completely rely on it functioning. Murphy's Law. I know this from experience, those batteries tend to go out when you need it most. :sad:
Submariner
08-06-11, 05:57
The Eotech being an electronic device, you shouldnt completely rely on it functioning. Murphy's Law. I know this from experience, those batteries tend to go out when you need it most. :sad:
Battery box problems and short battery life on Eotechs are known issues. Try an Aimpoint.
I still thing the RDS for quick and accurate out to 250 is do-able..
With no more than 1.6 inch off LOS between 15 and 230 yards, using TAP 2 or BH Mk 262 Mod 1, an Aimpoint is GTG for longer shots. ["The external ballistics of the two loads are virtually indistinguishable out to 250 yards. The conservative ballistic coefficients used for the graph and tables below were derived by testing at 200 yards by Rick Jamison." Chart and quote posted by Molon.]
http://home.comcast.net/~gocartmozart/MK262_vs_556_TAP_graph.jpg
Ed L.,
I hike out in the desert and do some spelunking in the mountains and foothills. When I do that I drag my SBR along. In some of those areas it it quite possible to encounter illegals/ smugglers.
It's quite possible that they could be armed (has happened) and may take shots at you. In which case........200-300 yards could happen.
Plus I like to maintain my long distance shooting skills.
I think thre reason Rob & others emphasize CQB shooting is that it is the closest thing to some type of home defense use of a longarm.
Exactly what type of a situation would a civilian short of some type of SHTF be shooting at someone at 200-300 yards away?
Okay, you may have a point there.;)
Heavy Metal
08-06-11, 11:07
If I recall correctly you need to be able to shoot 3 moa consistently to qualify marksman on an Army Qualification Test.
That being done with old well worn rifles with iron sights.
I could shoot 30MOA and qualify Marksman just by saving all the long range opportunity rounds to re-fire my misses. If you can shoot 8MOA, you can qualify Expert. 6 will get you 40 out of 40.
Submariner
08-06-11, 11:17
The crap you read in threads like these makes me either want to laugh or cry.
At least we don't have folks posting that the "click" from turning on your Aimpoint will alert an intruder. :suicide2:
4x4twenty6
08-06-11, 11:48
Submariner: i never new that about the eotechs and thanks for the heads up. greatly appreciated.
The crap you read in threads like these makes me either want to laugh or cry.
4x4twenty6
08-06-11, 12:15
surf: If someone got something wrong help us out by giving us the correct answer. Not meaningless criticism.
My defensive rifle has, as of right now, fixed sights. Before I go spending money on an optic of any kind I want to know that I actually "need" one. I understand that an optic is likely to improve accuracy. That's not a topic I care to get into.
So from a fixed sight defensive Carbine what MOA should I be happy with?
Not what 20" NM gun can do but what is a realistic goal for Carbine.
I like to shoot/stock XM193 if that helps.
Thanks.
That's the exact question I asked when I first got into ARs this year.
I know I'm as accurate as the gun, but I usually get 3-5" groups at 100, prone, monopod on the mag.
Bone stock Colt 6920 with 62 grain PMC XTAC.
I am with IG. You do not need an optic now to shoot your carbine or use it to defend your life.
I would rather get a basic carbine with iron sights and start shooting it now, than have to wait until I can afford an optic. However, the optic is a good item to plan to get.
Good shooting out to 600 yards or more can be done with iron sights. I see no reason why an RDS couldn't do the same
Ed L.,
I hike out in the desert and do some spelunking in the mountains and foothills. When I do that I drag my SBR along. In some of those areas it it quite possible to encounter illegals/ smugglers.
It's quite possible that they could be armed (has happened) and may take shots at you. In which case........200-300 yards could happen.
Plus I like to maintain my long distance shooting skills.
Good point, IG. For the most part I live in about a 100 yard world.
I'm not sure if its been stated, I'll admit to not reading the whole thread, but I would say that any properly built AR with a barrel on it that's not shot out will provide good enough mechanical accuracy to get the job done. It falls on the shooter, and their skills to bring that capability to bear in a fast and accurate manner. Are all the doodads needed? no, do they help? sure, at times, but training and mindset are what really matters.
Just my humble opinion.
morbidbattlecry
08-06-11, 16:11
So much for OPs no BS answer.
the single biggest positive factor the RD system brings to the M4 is the low light/dark shooting conditions...fast acquisition of the dot onto the target...provided the target is 'visible'.
my preference, also, is the standard irons with a good tac flashlite on the muzzle of the carbine. i use it when in pursuit of varmints here on my property at nite and it provides adequate light and sight picture on the local vermin out to 25-30 yds/meters. i certainly am not 'bad mouthing' RD systems, either; many like and use them quite successfully.
combat, LE applications, sporting and HD/SD are all different in the "What if?" scenario and all have different solutions.
IMO, the military RD/holo systems are probably the best way to go, but i, personally, cannot justify the $$$$, if a person wishes to go to an 'optical' system.
the use of a sling has been mentioned as being very important, too; it will provide much needed stability when aiming.
So much for OPs no BS answer.
There have been a few beacons of light but only a few. :rolleyes:
It is the internet afterall.
R Moran,
That's because it is impossible to know... Precisely... The target will dictate that at the moment. Could be a 3" circle inthe face, could be a 10x12 rectangle on a torso, etc, etc.... All you can do is train for a reasonable range of plausible target sizes.
Try this (somewhat old)clip to get a better understanding of the concept of the Balance of Speed & Precision (http://video.personaldefensenetwork.com/video/The-Balance-Between-Speed-and-3;search:balance%20speed%20precision). Anyone who tells you to shoot at X" target is going to be shooting at an average or, worse, defaulting to the smallest plausible target, which means you'll often be training to shoot slower that you might be able to in an actual fight.
Here's an article version of the BoS&P (http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/articles/defensive-firearm-training/shooting-balance-of-speed-and-precision/) also...
Lastly, here is an actual demo of the concept in action at a defensive pistol match, showing the different pacing possible at different sizes of plausible defense targets at the same distance: BoS&P Demo (http://video.personaldefensenetwork.com/video/Balance-of-Speed-Precision;search:balance%20speed%20precision)
-RJP
Thanks, I already have an understanding of balancing speed and accuracy.
An awful lot of time to say...
" as accurate as you need to be, as fast as you need to be"
That is nothing more then what every instructor I mentioned, and a whole lot of others not mentioned, and plenty of "tier one" types, all state.
Yet, they all seem to be able to give a reasonable goal for accuracy, many based on real world combat.
I would much rather default to the "smallest plausible target", then fall back on "good enough", or "close enough".
Its much easier to shoot faster, then to shoot more accurate.
Who goes into the gym, and just push steel around? without noting how much he is lifting or how many reps? Not many, especially if they expect to make improvements.
Sorry, I just don't buy into the "way of no way" type of arguments.
Bob
There have been a few beacons of light but only a few. :rolleyes:
It is the internet afterall.
Well, I hope I was one of them:D
What it comes down to, is deciding what your mission is, and then equipping and training for it.
Do you need an Aimpoint for home defense....not really. Does it make things easier for you, in a multitude of different environments and situations?, yes.
If your waiting to hit some magical number, either in speed or group size, before you get an Aimpoint, you'd be wrong. There is no phase line you need to cross, before you can get an Aimpoint.
Look at what every one that advocates an Aimpoint, has to say. Look at the situations that we indicate they excel in, and why we like them. Do these seem like a reasonable situation you may use your carbine in? A benefit you would like to see?
If so, get one, if not don't.
But also, don't think, that shooting fast with irons, standing on the flat range, with blue skies and 75 degree weather, means an Aimpoint is of no value.
Bob
So much for OPs no BS answer.
There have been a few beacons of light but only a few. :rolleyes:
It is the internet afterall.
You know, the OP asked a completely bullshit question. Defensive Carbine mechanical accuracy with an optic or without doesn't matter one ****ing bit.
Because there is huge difference between accuracy and being able to shoot someone in the face under poor conditions.
And having several pissants sharpshooting the responses without posting anything of substance doesn't help, either.
If you ask a completely bullshit question, you cannot expect an no-bullshit answer.
Dirtyboy333
08-06-11, 21:53
You know, the OP asked a completely bullshit question. Defensive Carbine mechanical accuracy with an optic or without doesn't matter one ****ing bit.
Because there is huge difference between accuracy and being able to shoot someone in the face under poor conditions.
And having several pissants sharpshooting the responses without posting anything of substance doesn't help, either.
If you ask a completely bullshit question, you cannot expect an no-bullshit answer.
Well said...i was thinking the same thing
My question was answered long ago.
In that case, I suggest we just let this thread die.
It's turned into a bunch of bickering.
You know, the OP asked a completely bullshit question. Defensive Carbine mechanical accuracy with an optic or without doesn't matter one ****ing bit.
Because there is huge difference between accuracy and being able to shoot someone in the face under poor conditions.
And having several pissants sharpshooting the responses without posting anything of substance doesn't help, either.
If you ask a completely bullshit question, you cannot expect an no-bullshit answer.
That time of the month?
What part of the OP did you misunderstand? I specificly stated that I did not want to get into the optic debate. Did you see that??!!!! Not my fault that it took a left turn. I also clarified later that was not looking for opinion as to whether or not I need an optic. My question was answered long ago.
I generally wanted to know what I should be expecting out of a carbine with XM193. That's all.
My defensive rifle has, as of right now, fixed sights. Before I go spending money on an optic of any kind I want to know that I actually "need" one. I understand that an optic is likely to improve accuracy. That's not a topic I care to get into.
So from a fixed sight defensive Carbine what MOA should I be happy with?Not what 20" NM gun can do but what is a realistic goal for Carbine.
I like to shoot/stock XM193 if that helps.
Thanks.
?????
How's that a BS question??
prodgi,
You did not ask a BS question. What type of accuracy to shoot for (pun intended) with a defensive (AR/M4) carbine using your choice of ammo is a legit question. It has been answered but to reiterate a good carbine is capable of 2-4 MOA, many easily achieve the 2-3 MOA mark. A good shooter with iron sights should be able to push the carbine right at its mechanical accuracy and be able to make precision shots in this same MOA range even with iron sights. In other words a very good shooter shouldn't be much if any of a limiting factor. Of course you would need a solid baseline of the weapons accuracy so that you could reference your own precision against that.
Unfortunately it is all the other crap that followed that effed up this thread, especially those swearing (OK OK I said crap also) and getting their panties all wadded up. Not to mention all of the misinformation in this thread, which at this point would be a huge project in itself to attempt to cover and explain. One of which that I will not attempt to take on since you have your answer already. :)
Surf,
OK, I cuss, sorry, just the way I talk:D
Seriously,
If I've stated something that you disagree with or think is BS, I'd like to get your take on it.
This is a discussion forum, and we discuss things. Some of the best info comes out of threads that take a different twist, or turn.
In the same vein, not addressing BS that sometimes gets slipped into a thread under the radar, lends credibility to it. So, people address it, and then its off to the races.
Bob
?????
How's that a BS question??
You stated that you were aware that an optic will improve accuracy. That is absolutely false. An optic has zero effect on carbine accuracy. Zero.
Then you asked what MOA is acceptable in a defensive carbine.
MOA and defensive carbine is nonsense. The fantasy that you will somehow be engaging "perps" at 100-300 yards is just that. It's fantasy. Unless you want to engage in murder and name it "self-defense". Since typical self defense ranges are 50 yards and in, I'd say anything under 20 MOA is satisfactory for defensive use.
Your original question had a completely bullshit caveat (re: accuracy) and then asked a completely irrelevant question (MOA acceptable for a "defensive" carbine).
And then demanding a "no BS answer" is, frankly, spoiled little brat behavior, which reeks of an entitlement mindset, that, frankly, has been engaged in of late by too many spoiled little bitches who apparently think they are owed free information because they bless the forum with their stupid, insistent and sometimes bullshit questions. IMO, you haven't EARNED a "no-BS answer" to your stupid ****ing question.
That's how your question was complete bullshit. Happy now?
I think it's time administer lethal injection to this thread. Hopefully the OP has received enough information to make a decision.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.