What is mil-spec accuracy?
- Thread starter BumbleBug
- Start date
I worked with a Bud who went through basic in the 1950's. He was an avid shooter before and after. Shooting for qualification he was handed a Garand that was so worn that he was able to insert into the muzzle of the rifle the front of a 30-06 round down to the case neck. He showed the worn condition of the barrel to the Range Officer, who just shook his head and walked off! Sympathy but no help!.
Bud shot for qualification with that rifle and had a terrible score. The WW2 club member told me he had two ten round familiarizations with a M1 carbine before shipping off to Iwo Jima. Each ten round session was with a different M1 carbine and one of them was so ill sighted that with the rear sight at its highest setting, he had to aim at the top of the six by six 200 yard target frame to hit the bullseye in the middle!
In a war, mil spec gets to be sloppier and sloppier.
Basically this is true. The Government has scrubbed its requirements over the decades, starting with a vengence in the Jacques Gansler years, so that anything that could be a cost driver is removed. Military procurement documents have gotten so stupid that statements such as made to "best commercial practices" are common in military requirements. Meaningless statements like that are impossible to enforce and what goes out the door is whatever the Contractor feels they can get away with.
I have seen a number of joke coffee cups in the hands of Defense employees. The cup says "Nothing is too good for our Troops, which is why we buy from the lowest bidder!"
Last edited:
Shooting what? M80 ball or M118LR?
One of the reasons that the accuracy acceptance standards seem so low for rack grade rifles is that they are shooting something like M80 ball (for a standard M14), M2 Ball (for the Garand), or M855 for an M16A2/M4.
Swap that ammunition for M118LR, M72, or Mk262Mod1 and things usually get better
Jimro
M16A4 Accuracy
Currently in the Marine Corps we shoot the FN made M16A4 out to 500 Yds, at a B-Mod target that measures 20"x40". At that range we use the M855 62gr Steel Core Ball rounds (green tips) to qualify.
I have personally put the whole string of 10 rounds, at 500 Yds into the black. That being said, I am inclined to believe that 4 MOA would be a reasonable number to be the minimum accuracy standard given the target at that distance is 20" wide. I personally think my rifle was a little more accurate than that, but I didn't exactly go out and measure groups either!
On a side note, I felt confident in the product FN produced and had alot of faith that it was accurate enough for anything I would ever need it for. If I was shooting from a bench like some of these folks on here, I wouldnt feel good about that level of accuracy, but for everyday use I would.
I honestly don't know what the official "mil-specs" on the rifle were, but it was definately better than 8 MOA
Currently in the Marine Corps we shoot the FN made M16A4 out to 500 Yds, at a B-Mod target that measures 20"x40". At that range we use the M855 62gr Steel Core Ball rounds (green tips) to qualify.
I have personally put the whole string of 10 rounds, at 500 Yds into the black. That being said, I am inclined to believe that 4 MOA would be a reasonable number to be the minimum accuracy standard given the target at that distance is 20" wide. I personally think my rifle was a little more accurate than that, but I didn't exactly go out and measure groups either!
On a side note, I felt confident in the product FN produced and had alot of faith that it was accurate enough for anything I would ever need it for. If I was shooting from a bench like some of these folks on here, I wouldnt feel good about that level of accuracy, but for everyday use I would.
I honestly don't know what the official "mil-specs" on the rifle were, but it was definately better than 8 MOA
Model12Win
Moderator
Honestly in today's marketing world "mil-spec" doesn't mean a whole lot.
If you're interested in how a particular model shoots, I would do my homework and look up reviews etc. where the rifle is grouped. That will tell you more than "mil-spec"!
If you're interested in how a particular model shoots, I would do my homework and look up reviews etc. where the rifle is grouped. That will tell you more than "mil-spec"!
I often jokingly refer to Mil Spec as the Lowest bidder.
But lets look at reality vs. Mil Spec
This is from an post above and I have no reason to doubt it.
I dealt with enough military rifles since I started my military career 47 years ago to believe the above numbers are pretty close (for arms room guns, not match rifles).
I also have seen enough military shooters to know the limiting factor IS NOT the rifle, but the shooter. Most soldiers and yes I'll add marines (there I said it) cant shoot.
Lets look at the E-Silhouette target. Its suppose to represent the average soldier, shoulder with 19 inches.
Lets take #4, the M16 at 4.5 moa and round it up to 5 MOA. A 5 MOA rifle should be able to keep all the hits on the E Target up to 380 yards or better.
If you look at the ranges of sniper confirmed hits in Vietnam, you find the average shot is just north of 400 yards. Iraq (urban warfare) is less, Afghan? Haven't been there but I would assume it might be a bit farther. Sure we read about shots a lot further, but not with the service rifle.
That's with sniper rifles. Few fire fights are beyond 400 yards. So the 5 MOA Service Rifle is more the adequate for the average infantryman.
The problem is not better ammo or better rifles, the problem that needs to be addressed is better marksmanship so the soldier/marine can take advantage of the 5 MOA accuracy of the service rifle.
Having said this I do take exception to the 5 MOA for the Garand. In my old age my interest has moved to the Vintage Military Rifles used in the CMP GSM Matches. As a CMP Master Instructor I conduct several GSM Clinics and Matches with the "as is" service rifles. I found that there are few M1's and Springfield's that aren't capable of 3.5 MOA. 3.5 MOA should clean the GSM Matches. The rifle is capable, but you seldom find a shooter who can do it.
In short, don't worry about the gun, worry about your shooting. Unless you can keep ALL your shots inside a 20 inch circle at 400 yards the current (and past) service rifles and ammo will out shoot the soldier/marine.
But lets look at reality vs. Mil Spec
This is from an post above and I have no reason to doubt it.
I dealt with enough military rifles since I started my military career 47 years ago to believe the above numbers are pretty close (for arms room guns, not match rifles).
I also have seen enough military shooters to know the limiting factor IS NOT the rifle, but the shooter. Most soldiers and yes I'll add marines (there I said it) cant shoot.
Lets look at the E-Silhouette target. Its suppose to represent the average soldier, shoulder with 19 inches.
Lets take #4, the M16 at 4.5 moa and round it up to 5 MOA. A 5 MOA rifle should be able to keep all the hits on the E Target up to 380 yards or better.
If you look at the ranges of sniper confirmed hits in Vietnam, you find the average shot is just north of 400 yards. Iraq (urban warfare) is less, Afghan? Haven't been there but I would assume it might be a bit farther. Sure we read about shots a lot further, but not with the service rifle.
That's with sniper rifles. Few fire fights are beyond 400 yards. So the 5 MOA Service Rifle is more the adequate for the average infantryman.
The problem is not better ammo or better rifles, the problem that needs to be addressed is better marksmanship so the soldier/marine can take advantage of the 5 MOA accuracy of the service rifle.
Having said this I do take exception to the 5 MOA for the Garand. In my old age my interest has moved to the Vintage Military Rifles used in the CMP GSM Matches. As a CMP Master Instructor I conduct several GSM Clinics and Matches with the "as is" service rifles. I found that there are few M1's and Springfield's that aren't capable of 3.5 MOA. 3.5 MOA should clean the GSM Matches. The rifle is capable, but you seldom find a shooter who can do it.
In short, don't worry about the gun, worry about your shooting. Unless you can keep ALL your shots inside a 20 inch circle at 400 yards the current (and past) service rifles and ammo will out shoot the soldier/marine.
That is my experience as well, with M16A2/4 and M4s. The "acceptance standards" are an outer limit of accuracy. A rifle can shoot MOA and meet acceptance standards, or a rifle can shoot 3.9 MOA and meet acceptance standards. Most rifles I've handled shoot better than the acceptance standard.
Jimro
acceptance accuracy for M14 was 4.0" at 100 yards.
acceptance accuracy for M16 series is 5.0" at 100 yards.
Quote:
That would be the ARMY M14EBR-RI. These are rack grade M14s taken from storage and bolted into SAGE EBR stocks, the rifles themselves are NOT reworked. The acceptance criteria was a maximum of 1.5 MOA with the result averaging 0.89 MOA for the first 5,000 built.
M118LR
acceptance accuracy for M16 series is 5.0" at 100 yards.
Quote:
That would be the ARMY M14EBR-RI. These are rack grade M14s taken from storage and bolted into SAGE EBR stocks, the rifles themselves are NOT reworked. The acceptance criteria was a maximum of 1.5 MOA with the result averaging 0.89 MOA for the first 5,000 built.
M118LR
Last edited:
MIL SPEC for match ammo (M72 .30-06 and M118/M852 7.62 NATO) was an average mean radius of 3.5 inches at 600 yards. .30-06 M2 ball service ammo specs were 7.5 inch average mean radius at 600 yards; match M72 ammo was same as 7.62 match ammo. 7.62 NATO M80 ball ammo's MIL SPEC is 5 inches average mean radius at 600 yards. Linked machine gun ammo specs for both are about 50% bigger.
Many dozens of shots fired and groups typically had 250 to 300 shots in them. That was from a barreled M1903 action with a match grade test barrel laying in the V-block of a Mann rest. Match ammo's groups with that many shots were typically 10 to 15 inches extreme spread shot from the Mann rest. Ball ammo's groups were typically 20 to 30 inches at 600 yards as shot from service grade M1's and M14's.
Many dozens of shots fired and groups typically had 250 to 300 shots in them. That was from a barreled M1903 action with a match grade test barrel laying in the V-block of a Mann rest. Match ammo's groups with that many shots were typically 10 to 15 inches extreme spread shot from the Mann rest. Ball ammo's groups were typically 20 to 30 inches at 600 yards as shot from service grade M1's and M14's.
If a 308 won't shoot M118LR, odds are it just won't shoot. There are exceptions to this, such as the Palma rifles with too slow a twist built around 155gr bullets, those will shoot like a house on fire with their preferred ammo.
On the flip side, if you ever find a lot of M80 ball that holds 2 minutes at 100, buy all of it you can
I've never been able to find any milsurp ball that shot less than 2.5 minutes at 100, although Radway Green and DAG were supposedly able to make sniper grade lots for issue using ball components.Jimro
Kraigwy
Good post.
Absolutely true, and, if you have attended any action pistol matches, law enforcement are not exactly stellar shots.
True, but because this is so low on the funding priorities, it will never happen.
Understand acceptance criteria means that the rifles that were bought shot 5MOA or less. You would expect that given a 5MOA reject criteria the vast majority of rifles would shoot less. A College kid who remembers statistics could provide what the mean accuracy would be so that 3 sigma rifles pass, but not the five or six sigma rifles.
Now as an interesting data point, I have a publication, which I purchased from William Ricca, titled “Rifle U.S. Cal 30, M1, National Match 1957”. I think this was handed out at the National Matches because it was written as an informational brochure on the NM rifles of the year.
Section 5. Accuracy Firing
a. With the rifle supported in a rifle rest three ten shot groups are fired at 1000 yards for accuracy using match ammunition. The average extreme spread of these groups cannot exceed 4.2 inches. Any one ten-shot group making this average cannot exceed 5.7 inches extreme spread. If these requirements are not met the rifle is rejected.
b. Figure 24 illustrates the distribution of averages of three ten-shot groups for 655 National Match Rifles targeted in this fashion. It is to be noted that all rifles to the right of the 4.2 inch line were screened out; the average of those accepted was a 3.4 inch average group size and eighty-eight rifles averaged three inches and under for three ten shot groups.
I looked at figure 24 and the average three shot group size starts under two inches, 59.7% have the average group size of 3.4”, and there were 20 rifles that shot 6.4”, 16 that shot 6.6”, 14 that shot 6.8”, 10 that shot 7 inches, … yada, yada, yada, and there are NM M1’s that shot 9.5” three shot groups.
And remember, these were newly made NM rifles!!
The acceptance accuracy of the NM rifles were set primarily by the ability to shoot a perfect score. The accuracy of rack grade rifles were set to an entirely different set of standards. Monetary issues are set by people whose concerns are quite different from the user. As an example, on travel, at the rental car counter, the business traveler expects the company to pay for a Lamborghini, or at least a Ferrari. When the business traveler finds that anything above a sub compact will come out of his/her pocket, the traveler is always disappointed. So while the Soldier wants a target grade rifle, the people who over see the budget, are not interested in rejecting vast quantities of material, which will be correspondently vastly expensive, to make that wish come true. Early in the decision process statistical techniques are used to predict type one and type two errors, which are the risk of accepting bad material, and the risk of rejecting good material. Then if too much material is rejected, on Government contracts, the distance between goal posts is shortened and the width of the goal posts is widened. As it turns out the Government is ever accommodating to Defense contractors and it has been shown, time after time, the Government will bend itself into a pretzel to keep a major Defense Contractor happy.
As an historical example, the Ichord Report found that the Army knew that M16’s would jam, and jam at a very high rate with ball powder ammunition. This ball powder ammunition was standard issue in Vietnam because the manufacturer of the stick IMR powder was no longer producing ammunition for the Army. However, there were stores of 5.56 loaded with IMR powder and that ammunition was used in accepting Colt M16’s at the factory. Neither the Army nor Colt wanted to reject large numbers of M16’s, which would happen if the acceptance tests were run with issue ball powder ammunition.
The fact that these rifles would jam in combat with the issue ammunition and get good American’s killed was not an problem. I have run into Vietnam vets, one last week, who told me a lot of good Soldiers died because their M16 jammed in combat.
So, if function is of lesser importance than maximizing the Contractor’s profits, just where do accuracy considerations fall in the big scheme of things?
Good post.
Absolutely true, and, if you have attended any action pistol matches, law enforcement are not exactly stellar shots.
True, but because this is so low on the funding priorities, it will never happen.
Understand acceptance criteria means that the rifles that were bought shot 5MOA or less. You would expect that given a 5MOA reject criteria the vast majority of rifles would shoot less. A College kid who remembers statistics could provide what the mean accuracy would be so that 3 sigma rifles pass, but not the five or six sigma rifles.
Now as an interesting data point, I have a publication, which I purchased from William Ricca, titled “Rifle U.S. Cal 30, M1, National Match 1957”. I think this was handed out at the National Matches because it was written as an informational brochure on the NM rifles of the year.
Section 5. Accuracy Firing
a. With the rifle supported in a rifle rest three ten shot groups are fired at 1000 yards for accuracy using match ammunition. The average extreme spread of these groups cannot exceed 4.2 inches. Any one ten-shot group making this average cannot exceed 5.7 inches extreme spread. If these requirements are not met the rifle is rejected.
b. Figure 24 illustrates the distribution of averages of three ten-shot groups for 655 National Match Rifles targeted in this fashion. It is to be noted that all rifles to the right of the 4.2 inch line were screened out; the average of those accepted was a 3.4 inch average group size and eighty-eight rifles averaged three inches and under for three ten shot groups.
I looked at figure 24 and the average three shot group size starts under two inches, 59.7% have the average group size of 3.4”, and there were 20 rifles that shot 6.4”, 16 that shot 6.6”, 14 that shot 6.8”, 10 that shot 7 inches, … yada, yada, yada, and there are NM M1’s that shot 9.5” three shot groups.
And remember, these were newly made NM rifles!!
The acceptance accuracy of the NM rifles were set primarily by the ability to shoot a perfect score. The accuracy of rack grade rifles were set to an entirely different set of standards. Monetary issues are set by people whose concerns are quite different from the user. As an example, on travel, at the rental car counter, the business traveler expects the company to pay for a Lamborghini, or at least a Ferrari. When the business traveler finds that anything above a sub compact will come out of his/her pocket, the traveler is always disappointed. So while the Soldier wants a target grade rifle, the people who over see the budget, are not interested in rejecting vast quantities of material, which will be correspondently vastly expensive, to make that wish come true. Early in the decision process statistical techniques are used to predict type one and type two errors, which are the risk of accepting bad material, and the risk of rejecting good material. Then if too much material is rejected, on Government contracts, the distance between goal posts is shortened and the width of the goal posts is widened. As it turns out the Government is ever accommodating to Defense contractors and it has been shown, time after time, the Government will bend itself into a pretzel to keep a major Defense Contractor happy.
As an historical example, the Ichord Report found that the Army knew that M16’s would jam, and jam at a very high rate with ball powder ammunition. This ball powder ammunition was standard issue in Vietnam because the manufacturer of the stick IMR powder was no longer producing ammunition for the Army. However, there were stores of 5.56 loaded with IMR powder and that ammunition was used in accepting Colt M16’s at the factory. Neither the Army nor Colt wanted to reject large numbers of M16’s, which would happen if the acceptance tests were run with issue ball powder ammunition.
The fact that these rifles would jam in combat with the issue ammunition and get good American’s killed was not an problem. I have run into Vietnam vets, one last week, who told me a lot of good Soldiers died because their M16 jammed in combat.
So, if function is of lesser importance than maximizing the Contractor’s profits, just where do accuracy considerations fall in the big scheme of things?
The Army has a three tiered approach to accuracy.
Basic Training and Unit training. Soldiers are expected to get a battlesight zero (also known as a point blank range zero) and engage torso size targets out to 300 meters. The use of iron sights and red dot sights is the norm for basic training. The use of ACOGs is usually trained at the unit level.
Squad Designated Marksmen training. Soldiers are expected to be familiar with factors affecting external ballistics to include altitude/air pressure, wind, and gravity and engage targets out to 600 meters. Qualification can take place at 500 meters, 600 yards, or 600 meters depending on maximum range length available. The use of ACOGs is required for the course, but units can choose to arm the SDM with any solution.
Sniper training. Soldiers are expected to master range estimation, wind compensation, moving target compensation, and engage targets to 800 meters. The M110 and Leupold Mk4 are the tools the schoolhouse has gone to.
It is a dual pipeline from the base level training to SDM or Sniper, you don't have to go up through the ranks so to speak but a lot of our Snipers at BN level get groomed from the SDM ranks as the best shots tend to work their way towards Sniper qualification.
The sad part is that every unit I've been in the Joe's want a unit marksmanship team, but the leadership with authority to make it happen have other priorities and seem to be risk averse.
Jimro
Genemarine
Inactive
MIL- spec does not mean military specifications. It mean milliradian. MILS is the plural form of MIL which is short for Milliradian. A Milliradian is 1/1000th of a Radian. This is a way of measuring a circle.
Similar to MOA - Minute of angle it is consistent at any range. Remember your trig here, and angle remains constant at every range, therefore specifying range is extraneous information. 1 MOA IS 1" @100yrds 2" @200yrds and so on.
Genemarine
Inactive
MILS is the plural form of MIL which is short for Milliradian. A Milliradian is 1/1000th of a Radian. This is a way of measuring a circle. A Milliradian is always 1/1000th of a Radian. Clear as mud right? Look at it this way, the total distance is your Radian. So if 100 yards is my radian, than a MIL at 100 yards will be 1/1000th of the total. There are 3600 inches in 100 yards, so a MIL will subtend to 3.6 inches at 100 yards.I've been reading up on AR's & I came across this term used in a sentence similar to this: "This barrel is capable of mil-spec accuracy."
Is that really a spec & if so what accuracy is that?
TIA...
...bug
Genemarine
Inactive
I am not really sure what the author is trying to say here. I doubt there are many 18-20 year old kids that can get a doctoral degree so that statement and subsequent point was a little insulting.
Breakdown of weapons was simplified because during weapon jams and failures previous weapons were essentially out of the fight as they took too long to tear down and had too many small parts moving.
Having been under fire I can tell you that the last thing you want to do is try to find a tool set while taking fire and clearing your weapon jam/failure.
Further, it does not take years to become a good shooter. If you do not learn technique and fly by the seat of your pants, then yes instinctual shooting takes years, and a great many hours of regular practice to become and stay proficient.
However, as a police firearms instructor, I can teach you to shoot proficiently with almost any small arm in a matter of hours.
His statement of the life of the service member though inaccurate, is also irrelevant. Service members do not take their weapons home. Most weapons in the US arsenal are designed to last for tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of rounds under regular combat conditions. AS such will be passed to the next service member.
This is not to say there are not extremes were a weapon won't be fired at length over it's tolerances, this does happen. And still the weapons perform brilliantly. For the most part. There are always outliars.
Just to be clear, my M14 fired at sub MOA. My M4 with NO modifications fires at sub MOA.
The intermediate round was not designed because the soldiers have no skill. Again, that is insulting. It was developed because most combat does not occur at ranges over 300 yards, most is in the range of 75-100yrds, but not all obviously, AND accurate suppressing fire from multiple locations was a game changer in small unit tactics.
My Uncle fought WWII, I have those endless stories of combat and his skills to prove it. He was able to consistently strike targets at 300-500 yards with a carbine. He was also disappointed at the training levels for marksmanship at the time. Most of the guys in his platoon had never held a weapon. I can't even imagine that. Moreover, the personnel requirements during war makes it hard to equate when evaluation training of the average soldier.
The author of that post really has a low opinion of our service members. This is very sad.