Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 107

Thread: Can I get a no BS answer? Defensive Carbine accuracy?

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    S.E. PA
    Posts
    1,692
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
    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.

    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:
    Attachment 9288
    Last edited by OldState; 08-05-11 at 00:33.
    "A flute without holes, is not a flute. A donut without a hole, is a Danish." - Ty Webb

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    96
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    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.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    7,905
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Swede View Post
    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
    Serving as a LEO since 1999.
    USPSA# A56876 A Class
    Firearms Instructor
    Armorer for AR15, 1911, Glocks and Remington 870 shotguns.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    575
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by WillBrink View Post
    ...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.)

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    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?

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    7,905
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)
    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
    Last edited by Alaskapopo; 08-04-11 at 18:19.
    Serving as a LEO since 1999.
    USPSA# A56876 A Class
    Firearms Instructor
    Armorer for AR15, 1911, Glocks and Remington 870 shotguns.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    AZ-Waging jihad against crappy AR's.
    Posts
    24,902
    Feedback Score
    104 (100%)
    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.



    Owner/Instructor at Semper Paratus Arms

    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SemperParatusArms/

    Semper Paratus Arms AR15 Armorer Course http://www.semperparatusarms.com/cou...-registration/

    M4C Misc. Training and Course Announcements- http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=141

    Master Armorer/R&D at SIONICS Weapon Systems- http://sionicsweaponsystems.com

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Aiken, SC
    Posts
    1,132
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    I thought we already had a few irons vs. the world threads...


    Quote Originally Posted by prodgi View Post
    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
    " Some people say..any tactic that works is a good tactic,...I say, anything can work once" former ABQ swat Sgt.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    74
    Feedback Score
    0
    [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.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    74
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by R Moran View Post
    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.

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •