What is mil-spec accuracy?
- Thread starter BumbleBug
- Start date
MIL SPEC accuracy specs as set by arsenals typically state a maximum mean radius of shot groups. Mean radius is the average distance many shots are from the group center. Extreme spread of such a group can easily be 3 or 4 times what the mean radius is; most of the shots are close to the center but enough are much further out to make that happen.
It's interesting to me that one would say a barrel is capable of mil spec accuracy without mentioning at what range, how many shots, what ammo and how accuracy is measured. Otherwise, they're preying on customer emotions thinking that means those barrels are accurate which will increase sales.
It's interesting to me that one would say a barrel is capable of mil spec accuracy without mentioning at what range, how many shots, what ammo and how accuracy is measured. Otherwise, they're preying on customer emotions thinking that means those barrels are accurate which will increase sales.
Mil-Spec means military specification.
So that begs the question …………….what military? And when?
What is acceptable to the Armenians may not be acceptable to the Swiss.
What is “Mil-Spec” for the Union army of 1870 is not the same as what is acceptable to the US Army today.
“Mil-Spec” can even be radically different from one decade to another. Look at the minimum specs acceptable for the M-16 and it's ammo compared to the M-16A2 and it's ammo.
The phrase “mil-Spec” is often used as a marketing ploy. It doesn’t really mean much when you start to understand how broad a term it can be.
What is within Mil-Spec for a rack grade M-1 Garand is not within Mil-Spec for an M1-D Sniper rifle,,,, and so on.
So that begs the question …………….what military? And when?
What is acceptable to the Armenians may not be acceptable to the Swiss.
What is “Mil-Spec” for the Union army of 1870 is not the same as what is acceptable to the US Army today.
“Mil-Spec” can even be radically different from one decade to another. Look at the minimum specs acceptable for the M-16 and it's ammo compared to the M-16A2 and it's ammo.
The phrase “mil-Spec” is often used as a marketing ploy. It doesn’t really mean much when you start to understand how broad a term it can be.
What is within Mil-Spec for a rack grade M-1 Garand is not within Mil-Spec for an M1-D Sniper rifle,,,, and so on.
Here is an interesting post, from Hummer70, on military rifles and their expected accuracy:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5424409
A concept that should be understood is that today’s battle rifles are not target rifles nor is there any expectation that they will ever be target grade. A century ago the British Army and the American Army trained the soldier to a high level of rifle marksmanship. The service rifles of the period were much more powerful and accurate than what is in inventory today. What changed was a combination of a change in tactics, different equipment, and the needs of the military industrial complex. Training is always shortchanged as the military budget is skewed to funding Defense Corporations and major weapon systems acquisitions.
Soldier pay does not attract those with Doctoral degrees so weapons have to be extremely simple to assemble and disassemble. The emphasis over time has been to issue extremely simple weapons that are medium powered and cheap to make. Cheap can be understood, if the lifetime of a Soldier is less than 9 months, why issue him/her a expensive rifle that will last decades? Given that Soldiers are not going to be trained to any sort of meaningful marksmanship standard it does not make sense to arm them with expensive, high powered weapons that are capable of target grade accuracy out to a 1000 yards. Medium powered cartridges were developed because it was realized that the troops have zero marksmanship skills, they don’t need to shoot at targets over 300 yards away, because they can’t hit a person at that range. As a note, marksmanship training in major wars became in time less than rudimentary. A Uncle of mine was allowed eight rounds of familiarization with his M1919 machine gun before parachuting on D-Day. He and his team were so ignorant of the operation of the thing, they did not realize the machine gun did not have a safety. As they were setting it up in France, they put a belt in the M1919 and accidentally bumped it on the trigger mechanism. One team member had his hand over the muzzle and lost a finger when the machine gun discharged! Our oldest gun club members had a total of 20 rounds of familiarization before landing second wave, on Iwo Jima. He was issued a new carbine on the ship prior to invasion and he had to zero the weapon in combat! He believes that if his Dad had not taught him how to shoot as a kid, he would not have made it out of WW2 alive.
It takes years to practice to become an good shooter and since the last two World Wars ended in less than five years, time was not be available then, nor is it expected to be in the next World War, to train anyone to an acceptance marksmanship standard. Given the expectations of low marksmanship skills accuracy is not an important consideration in a service rifle and is traded off for other features. Ergo, 5 MOA is just fine for a cheap military weapon as long as it goes bang each and every time.
All one has to do is shoot a AK47 with issue ammunition to see that accuracy is a low priority in modern weapon design. The Russians built an outstanding service rifle in the AK47: reliable, simple, but not accurate.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5424409
A concept that should be understood is that today’s battle rifles are not target rifles nor is there any expectation that they will ever be target grade. A century ago the British Army and the American Army trained the soldier to a high level of rifle marksmanship. The service rifles of the period were much more powerful and accurate than what is in inventory today. What changed was a combination of a change in tactics, different equipment, and the needs of the military industrial complex. Training is always shortchanged as the military budget is skewed to funding Defense Corporations and major weapon systems acquisitions.
Soldier pay does not attract those with Doctoral degrees so weapons have to be extremely simple to assemble and disassemble. The emphasis over time has been to issue extremely simple weapons that are medium powered and cheap to make. Cheap can be understood, if the lifetime of a Soldier is less than 9 months, why issue him/her a expensive rifle that will last decades? Given that Soldiers are not going to be trained to any sort of meaningful marksmanship standard it does not make sense to arm them with expensive, high powered weapons that are capable of target grade accuracy out to a 1000 yards. Medium powered cartridges were developed because it was realized that the troops have zero marksmanship skills, they don’t need to shoot at targets over 300 yards away, because they can’t hit a person at that range. As a note, marksmanship training in major wars became in time less than rudimentary. A Uncle of mine was allowed eight rounds of familiarization with his M1919 machine gun before parachuting on D-Day. He and his team were so ignorant of the operation of the thing, they did not realize the machine gun did not have a safety. As they were setting it up in France, they put a belt in the M1919 and accidentally bumped it on the trigger mechanism. One team member had his hand over the muzzle and lost a finger when the machine gun discharged! Our oldest gun club members had a total of 20 rounds of familiarization before landing second wave, on Iwo Jima. He was issued a new carbine on the ship prior to invasion and he had to zero the weapon in combat! He believes that if his Dad had not taught him how to shoot as a kid, he would not have made it out of WW2 alive.
It takes years to practice to become an good shooter and since the last two World Wars ended in less than five years, time was not be available then, nor is it expected to be in the next World War, to train anyone to an acceptance marksmanship standard. Given the expectations of low marksmanship skills accuracy is not an important consideration in a service rifle and is traded off for other features. Ergo, 5 MOA is just fine for a cheap military weapon as long as it goes bang each and every time.
All one has to do is shoot a AK47 with issue ammunition to see that accuracy is a low priority in modern weapon design. The Russians built an outstanding service rifle in the AK47: reliable, simple, but not accurate.
As used by many today, Mil-spec (without any reference to WHAT spec) is a meaningless term used to delude and convince people that your "mil-spec" product is made well.
In that way, its almost as bad as the current use of the word "tactical" for everything.
I was in the Army in the mid 70s. I was a Small Arms repairman. What I did for some years involved a lot of "mil-specs". Let me tell you, the military has a "spec" for virtually everything.
Got news for the under-enlightened, EVERY BARREL (and everything else) meets some "mil-spec". The specs for unserviceable or rejection are mil specs, too! IF they say "meets mil-spec" ask "which one?"
Here's a couple of examples,
Cartridge, 5.56mm, Ball, M193
Accuracy: 2.00" mean radius max avg at 200 yards
Cartridge, 5.56mm Tracer M196
Accuracy: 5.00" mean radius max avg at 200 yards
Cartridge, 7.62mm NATO, Ball, M59
Accuracy: carton or clip pack 5" mean radius at 600 yards
link pack 7.5" mean radius at 600 yards
Cartridge, 7.62mm NATO AP M61
accuracy: 7.5" mean radius at 600 yards
That's ammo, here's a spec on the rifle, from the Standards for Overseas Shipment (sorry, can't remember the manual #)
M16A1
accuracy: 8 MOA
That number stuck in my mind, and has all these years later. I was amazed, but there it was in print. 8 MOA. In other words, if the rifle would shoot 8 MOA, it was approved to be sent overseas (and into combat).
If it would NOT make 8 MOA, it was retained in the states for training use.
Think about that, for a moment. Its a mil-spec, just one of many. But do you think a barrel maker is going to choose that one?
IF they will quote a spec # you have something to verify. If they don't its just advertising BS.
Just my opinion, and worth what you paid for it.
In that way, its almost as bad as the current use of the word "tactical" for everything.
I was in the Army in the mid 70s. I was a Small Arms repairman. What I did for some years involved a lot of "mil-specs". Let me tell you, the military has a "spec" for virtually everything.
Got news for the under-enlightened, EVERY BARREL (and everything else) meets some "mil-spec". The specs for unserviceable or rejection are mil specs, too! IF they say "meets mil-spec" ask "which one?"
Here's a couple of examples,
Cartridge, 5.56mm, Ball, M193
Accuracy: 2.00" mean radius max avg at 200 yards
Cartridge, 5.56mm Tracer M196
Accuracy: 5.00" mean radius max avg at 200 yards
Cartridge, 7.62mm NATO, Ball, M59
Accuracy: carton or clip pack 5" mean radius at 600 yards
link pack 7.5" mean radius at 600 yards
Cartridge, 7.62mm NATO AP M61
accuracy: 7.5" mean radius at 600 yards
That's ammo, here's a spec on the rifle, from the Standards for Overseas Shipment (sorry, can't remember the manual #)
M16A1
accuracy: 8 MOA
That number stuck in my mind, and has all these years later. I was amazed, but there it was in print. 8 MOA. In other words, if the rifle would shoot 8 MOA, it was approved to be sent overseas (and into combat).
If it would NOT make 8 MOA, it was retained in the states for training use.
Think about that, for a moment. Its a mil-spec, just one of many. But do you think a barrel maker is going to choose that one?
IF they will quote a spec # you have something to verify. If they don't its just advertising BS.
Just my opinion, and worth what you paid for it.
My favorite "mil spec" regarding small arms accuracy is what Lake City arsenal used for their .30-06 M72 match ammo. It was a mean radius of 3.5 inches at 600 yards with between 200 and 300 rounds of ammo all shot into one group. That's what is needed to be close to 100% statistically significant. And precision test barrels in Mann rests were used to shoot them.
At the old DCM matches held at the Nationals before the late 1960's, the arsenal making the National Match lot of ammo would bring a test target to show the accuracy spec was met. The one for the 1965 M72 NM lot had a mean radius of 1.9 inches; average distance for 270 bullet holes from group center. Sounds impressive.
Some of the smallest 5-shot clusters were about 3/4ths inch.
The extreme spread of that 270-shot test group at 600 yards was about 11 inches.
In other words, one of the best lots of M72 match ammo ever made shot about 1.8 MOA at 600 yards. Or about 0.125 MOA for 5 shots once in a great while.
At the old DCM matches held at the Nationals before the late 1960's, the arsenal making the National Match lot of ammo would bring a test target to show the accuracy spec was met. The one for the 1965 M72 NM lot had a mean radius of 1.9 inches; average distance for 270 bullet holes from group center. Sounds impressive.
Some of the smallest 5-shot clusters were about 3/4ths inch.
The extreme spread of that 270-shot test group at 600 yards was about 11 inches.
In other words, one of the best lots of M72 match ammo ever made shot about 1.8 MOA at 600 yards. Or about 0.125 MOA for 5 shots once in a great while.
Yuck. I remember first reading about the 8 MOA accuracy number. That's just BAD, even for a full auto, that will be used in combat only. I know that doesn't mean all rifles will shoot 8MOA, but there has to be a number of them that do, or shoot close to it. I couldn't imagine having a combat rifle that shot over a 12'' group at 200 yards.
Anyway, it made me question everything 'Mil-spec' because they're obviously going by very loose standards, as far as accuracy.
Thank you for all the good responses.
The 8.0 MOA is a bit concerning, but as posters have explained the term "Mil-Spec" should be taken with a grain of salt as it varies by its context.
If I bought a bolt action rifle that shot 2" at a 100yds I'd be working on it to improve via the bedding & handloads. If that didn't work it would be sold off, although I know 2" is plenty good in a hunting rifle.
If an AR with iron-sights is used for plinking my expectations would be much less, but still better than 8".
Thanks for your insight...
..bug
The 8.0 MOA is a bit concerning, but as posters have explained the term "Mil-Spec" should be taken with a grain of salt as it varies by its context.
If I bought a bolt action rifle that shot 2" at a 100yds I'd be working on it to improve via the bedding & handloads. If that didn't work it would be sold off, although I know 2" is plenty good in a hunting rifle.
If an AR with iron-sights is used for plinking my expectations would be much less, but still better than 8".
Thanks for your insight...
..bug
chris in va
New member
I get a chuckle when someone says their equipment is mil-spec. Having seen plenty of non-firearm 'mil-spec' stuff in the USAF when I was in, people need to realize its definitely not the pinnacle of quality and reliability.
603Country
New member
I remember back when I was issued an M-14 in USMC recruit training. I fully intended and expected to shoot Expert, and I was hoping for a good rifle, and not something from a marginal supplier. They issued me a Winchester, and I was relieved. It was indeed a shooter, and I did good work with it. I was in no way familiar with the variance within mil-spec allowables, but just wanted a rifle made by a top level maker, which I thought would improve my chances.
But when it comes to firearms there are too many on the market that are below the milspec bar. And when some folks realize they didn't do their homework and bought substandard, well they scoff at the standards. If buying a serious weapon it's wise to meet or exceed that bar, not fall short. That's what our military strives to do and many civilians and LEOs as well.
Sure, there are higher bars to reach than milspec but at least get over the middle bar, don't trip over it.
As far as 8MOA, I suspect many of our rifles easily beat that but it's not as certain that the shooter can.
I never actually saw or heard about any service rifles that wouldn't do better than 8MOA, even the essentially worn out one I had in Basic was much more accurate than that.
But it is (or was then) the Mil-spec standard for overseas shipment.
Also, I never saw or heard of ANY small arms in the hands of line units EVER being checked against that standard prior to overseas shipment.
Artillery & mortar tubes we would inspect, borescope and pullover gauge, but all small arms only got an inspection and function check, and passing that, were good to go...
I brought up the 8 MOA because it is a "mil-spec" and mil-spec is like the line from the Princess Bride..." I do not think that word means what you think it means..."
But it is (or was then) the Mil-spec standard for overseas shipment.
Also, I never saw or heard of ANY small arms in the hands of line units EVER being checked against that standard prior to overseas shipment.
Artillery & mortar tubes we would inspect, borescope and pullover gauge, but all small arms only got an inspection and function check, and passing that, were good to go...
I brought up the 8 MOA because it is a "mil-spec" and mil-spec is like the line from the Princess Bride..." I do not think that word means what you think it means..."
I’m surprised (maybe should say confused) about 5 + inch accuracy at 100 yards being acceptable for military rifles. Doesn’t it take 3 MOA accuracy to make Expert Rifleman in the military? If you have a 5 MOA rifle, and figure in human error (wobble zone) you’d never be able to make Expert Rifleman.
A 5 MOA rifle couldn’t hit a human sized target at 400 yards. Aren’t 400 yard shots achievable with the M16 / M4 platform?
Heck, my rattle trap AK (Saiga) will shoot 5 MOA with M855 ammo.
A 5 MOA rifle couldn’t hit a human sized target at 400 yards. Aren’t 400 yard shots achievable with the M16 / M4 platform?
Heck, my rattle trap AK (Saiga) will shoot 5 MOA with M855 ammo.
It didn't in the 1970s army. Your official qualification was't shot on scoring targets. It was shot on pop up silhouettes. Ranges from 25 to 300 meters. Knock down the required number, and you "scored" expert.
The range I qualified on in basic training had lots of targets with large (hand size or even bigger) holes in the middle (where everyone aimed). After the first "miss" I had when I knew I hadn't missed at 25 meters, I figured out to shoot the ground right in front of that target, so the spray of gravel would knock down the target. It did work, usually. At the risk of sounding like I'm bragging, I had to aim for head shots in order to be sure of knocking them down. Which did work. Usually.
I "qualified" Marksman in basic training but only 3 people out of all that shot on the lane I used qualified at all! (myself and two others).
Every other time I fired for qualification, I "scored" expert.
A 5 MOA rifle has a chance of hitting a standing man at 400 meters, if you aim COM (compensating for drop) and the max dispersal of the rifle is vertical, you still stand a chance of hitting them, somewhere. Same POA with max horizontal variance, you could have a clean miss, by just a bit.
Back in the 70s, the army said the max effective range of the M16 was 460 meters. And we didn't shoot at targets beyond 300, With the M16.
Generally within minute of man will do for mil spec. Designated marksmen will carry a piece that is more accurate from what I've read. Reworked M14s are being used in the sandbox for range, stopping power and accuracy, but then I've only read that and have no military experience humping around shooting one. I spent my career on missile firing submarines. We didn't have to worry about accuracy to the extent our boys carrying a rifle for a living do. Although we were pretty darned accurate all things considered. At a little over 32 tons they weren't very portable without the boat to push us around, but they were capable of packing a punch and definitely didn't have a range problem. 
