So what was the difference between the groups he was shooting before and after?
Printable View
Yep
I think it is hard for some people to understand at the start. Many of us come from the world of bolt action rifles where things are nice and tight. Then we go pick up a Glock or an AR and wonder why we can see light through that very small line between receivers and frames.
Then of course some company comes about to sell gimicks that claim to solve the non-problem. It makes them sleep better at night then so be it, but I would not bother with the gimicks. Go shoot the rifle as stated above and have fun with it.
A little dated while not greatly so, sloppy methodology, clown-shoes writing and no editing to speak of(all the !!!!! garbage makes it VERY difficult to take seriously; like if Billy Mays wrote an AR book before his untimely passing).
Results were the kind of difference that only pure benchrest/bullseye shooters would care about. Not a dig on those guys, but it wasn't anywhere near significant enough to even contemplate tightening up lower/upper fit uless you're using a gnat's bunghole as a measuring standard. The info isn't wrong, but it's very, VERY limited in practical application in regard to a working or duty gun.
The US Army Marksmanship Team has/had a page where they dedicated it to debunking the accu-wedge, saying it did nothing to improve accuracy and that accuracy lies solely in the upper...accu-wedges are a solution in search of a problem.....
Unless it's all over the place and sloppy as hell, just forget about it; if you have problems with it, go with another lower; you certainly can't go wrong with DD. Forget about the accuwedge and similar crap.
Too much is made of the upper/lower fit. Unless it causes perceivable degredation in function/accuracy/reliability, there is no problem and thus no reason to give it a second thought.
people tend to not see that looser tolerances increase reliability in most cases.
Just speaking in general. This is one reason why the AK47 has great reliability, because of loose manufacturing tolerances. With looser tolerances small things like dirt, mud, gunk wont have as big of an effect on operation as some tight tolerance weapon such a German Luger. Luger has high manufacturing tolerances parts but unreliable in the real world. Looser tolerances mean there are less things that can be introduced and screw it up, hence greater reliability. If you have something so tightly manufactured together even the smallest thing can disrupt that more sensitive system. Of course with looser tolerances you lose precision. Its a delicate design balance.
Thanks for the explanation, I see what you're saying now; I thought you meant specifically with the lower/upper mating of the M4/AR; not just in general.
Thanks again.
Jim,
That's what I figured. I did some simple testing years back with my Noveske using an Accuwedge. I could see no practical difference at all when using it.
I Googled his name and when I discovered what type of shooter he was I think I knew all I needed to know.