Why are AR-15 rifles so accurate?

V

vince weng

New member
This should have posted to ar15.com, but I'd like to get all possible inputs (not just ar fans). People are talking about the good accuracy of ARs. My question is why it is so accurate. Does the accuracy come from its twist rate, tight bore, inherent accuracy of .223 round, in-line buffering system, gas operated system and what. If people can make an AR so accurate, why those technologies are not used on other rifle design such as Mini-14 or AK?
 
For a rifle , in general, they are not that accurate. For a semi-auto rifle, they are very accurate. True accuracy comes in the form of a bolt action rifle such as the Remington 700BDL or Robar line. The AR15 is fairly accurate due to its rotating bolt and relatively tight tolerances (also a problem in combat situations).
 
supposedly the follow up shot is accurate because the majority of the mass of the system is inline with the bore

the system is not designed for match grade accuracy for the military but if you are willing to loose some field reliability, the gun can be spacegunned into a rapid fire, highly accurate system.

a buddy has an SR25 that is fielded for sniper training

dZ

------------------
"walk softly and carry a big stick, one that goes bang in .308 is fine"
 
The AR is very accurate...er I dont think so the M1/M1A beat the hell out of the AR types for years until the Military rifle teams were forced to use them. Then, them having tons of money and loads of time to spend on a range they started to develop the loadings and other goodies that got the ARs to the top of the service rifle competitions. I wouldn't think an off the rack AR would be any more accurate than any other off the rack semi-auto. For the record, when in the Army, I had a M-16A1 that me and two other SGTs could not get to take a zero. It never shot a group less than 2 inches on a 25 meter range all day. But the next day in 28 deg weather 10-20 mph crosswind and driving rain/sleet I went 38 for 40 when I qualified. The M-16 or me, only missed two silhouettes. (probably me, my hands were so cold by the end I could hardly pull the trigger, but those know it all SGTs would not let me shoot with gloves on, told them I had been shooting with gloves since I was 10)
Wouldn't bet that all those bullets hit center mass on those targets though.
but then again hitting a pop up target has more room for error that hitting the bull.

PS if you see Spark tell him I did have one good comment on an AR


[This message has been edited by Alan B (edited January 06, 2000).]
 
If you take one of these out of the box, add a scope and a free float handguard...

View


It will shoot holes in a target like these under average conditions (slight wind - no mirage, and a slight jerk behind the trigger!)

View


High performance bolt guns will do a little better with good ammo and a higher powered scope - this was shot with Winchester "white box" hard ball and a 6x fixed power!

Mikey
 
Micky tut tut
free float hand guard and a heavy match barrel are not somthing you find on a stock out of the box AR. This is hardly a rack grade weapon.

If you want to get in to weapons that have been "tweeked" we could argu all day over the best one.
 
m4.jpg

The M16A2 shoots well because it’s so easy to shoot. The ergonomics are almost perfect. That and the fact the Pentagon has spent nearly 40 years and countless hundreds-of-millions of dollars ironing out the minor little details. -- Kernel
 
FWIW: my STOCK Bushmaster 20" HBAR target rifle shot consistent sub minute groups even with the lousy trigger out of the box, it will do so 1500 rds later. Well built bolt guns might beat it, but not many stockers would.
 
I am no expert on rifles, I only own a .22 and a shotgun as far as long guns go,but---
I found the M-16 a2 the easiest to carry, shoot, and maintain rifle I had ever fired while I was a Cav Scout in the Army. My assigned weapon was an M-16/M203, and it was great.
Mine would hold a zero forever, and was waaay more accurate than I was. We had to qualify more often than some of the other platoons due to our MOS. We were always running a range of some kind. I hope to someday own an AR15. I wish I could get the free ammo the army provided!

------------------
Something from our wine list?!!
Ford Fairlane
 
My Bushmaster H-Bar out of the box shot sub-moa groups, do all of them do that, no, but compared to most other military weapons, If I was going to qualify I would rather have a M-16A2 over just about ever weapon out there. For a miltary issue weapon or one designed as one, the M-16/AR-15 are the most accurate around. 5.56/223 was a scaled up varmit round that was pretty accurate to start with. The close tolerances in the weapon help a lot with the accuracy. The sights on the weapon (the A2) really are more match rifle sights than battle rifle sights. The weapon has a real low recoil, making follow up shot easier.
 
It has been noted that the M1 and M1A beat up on the AR in competition until the military teams were forced to use them and threw tons of money into research. That may be partly true, but there is another side. The Army MTU started evaluation of the M16 in 1969. They tested a heavy barrel version and reported that these weapons gave superior accuracy and in fact, using 55 grain ball ammo, would fire groups nearly equal to the NM M14's with match ammo. This tesing was done at 300 yards. Some work was done to build up a sutable match verson and the Navy and Marine Corps also ran a M16 match program. Probably the biggest limiting factor for these early tests was the total absence of sutable bullets. These programs faded and were put on the back burner. After all, the M14 was already well refined. When Col. Johnson took command of the Army MTU in the early 1990's, he ordered the development of a match M16. Many civilian shooters had been working with the AR all along and by this time there were several good 22 cal match bullets available. The Army conducted tests of their own, but much of what they ended up using to build the match M16 was learned from civilians. It was a fast track program and SFC Ken Gill won the National Service Rifle Championship with a match tunned M16 in 1994. There has been no looking back.

They are indeed an accurate rifle. John Feamster shot an AR15 in a registered benchrest match in 1996. At 200 yards, he shot a 5 shot group measuring .231" with ammo fed through the magazine. The rifle had a match barrel and trigger, but was not exotic in any way.

Why are they accurate? Tough question. Most likely for lots of reasons. The rotating bolt that locks into a barrel extension is no doubt a big part of it. There is no bedding. There is very little rotating mass as compaired to an M1 or M14, M1A. There is no opp rod. They are easy to shoot well partly due to such mild recoil. I am sure there are more reasons. One thing I do know, when I get an AR set up and shooting well, it shoots until the barrel is gone with little maintence. Shooting the M1A in the highpower matches, they needed regular tuning to stay good. The M14 is a beautiful rifle and I love them, but I will stick to my AR in competition.
 
Alan B:

Your "tuts" are a little much, considering the inaccuracy of your post. All Bushmasters have the heavy barrel configuration. Yep, the plain ol vanilla, Bush Shorty (which I own) is an HBAR. I did free-float the barrel and added a drop-in JP trigger, and it does shoot consistent .5" groups at 100 yds.

Not quite as accurate as my Rem. 700 VS, but certainly better than (from another poster) "just about any semi-auto off the rack."

The AR's are running the M1-A's off because of superior accuracy, not because the Army was "forced to use M-16's".
 
WalterGAII

Check you facts and read Tom D's post again then read this from the army rifle teams web sight.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The M16A2 has just recently been developed for competition use. For the past four years the Custom Gun Shop at the Marksmanship Unit has been modifying the M16A2 for competition use. When development first began the M14 was the predominant rifle used in Highpower Rifle competitions. At first the M16A2 was thought to be less accurate and harder to modify than the M14. Today the M16A2 is the premier rifle used by Service Rifle shooters in competition. The Service Rifle Team has produced three consecutive National Service Rifle Champions, won numerous Interservice and National team matches and set several individual and team national records. This is a feat NO ONE thought possible with a M16[/quote]
http://www.usamu.org/servrifle/m16.htm
(emphasis is theirs)

So I guess it doesn’t count that that until recently the army didn’t consider the M-16 that accurate. I guess I was deluded in my previous post, I am truly sorry.

But it seems I remember an article stating that in the early 90s, a new Commander took over one of the rifle teams. He told the team (I am paraphrasing here) “the m-16 is our service rifle, that’s what we are going to use, and if its not good enough then we are going to make it good enough.”
If ordering a military rifle team to change rifles is not forcing, then what is it?
Maybe I dreamed it while in my deluded post above.

Also I have not seen a Bushmaster that I would consider a rack grade rifle. All the ones I have seen have been really nice rifles.


Why is the rifle so accurate. On average I don’t know that the ARs are that much more accurate. "were taking average of all AR types here so lets not get into mine is better stuff again"
1. It probable deals with the caliber, .223 is a flat shooter.
2. There is not a lot of weight tied up in moving parts.
3. There is not much recoil.
4. The rifle weights less than most of the others, not much but still less.

Add all this and it means that after pulling the trigger there is less total force pulling the rifle off target. Making the follow up shot easier. Basically it’s a more stable platform. As we used to say in the Army "Model M-16A1 bullet launching station"

BTW my platoon always pulled range detail on the qualification range. So we got to shoot up the extra ammo at the end of the day (we are talking cases, the ammo dump didn’t want any live ammo brought back) so I have launched a lot of rounds with an AR type rifle. But I never developed any fondness for it. Standard ammo suffers past 350-400 meters.

I will give you this though when we burned up the extra ammo we never used full auto or burp mode (we considered it unmanly, any fool can run a hose). We used to play a game where the object was to drop all 6 targets (50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300) before the first one reset and popped back up. You could finish a little faster with a M-16 over a M-14.




[This message has been edited by Alan B (edited January 07, 2000).]
 
I love my AR, & I appreciate how easy it would be to "trick it out" If I wanted to turn it into a match gun.

But; is my stock Bushmaster Shorty really more accurate than a HK 53, Galil, or an AUG etc...? If we had put the same collected effort into any of these guns wouldn't they do just as well?
 
Alan B, You were not dreaming. The commander you are thinking of is the same Col. Johnson that I refered to in my post. When Col. Johnson assumed command of the Army Marksmanship Training Unit (MTU) he was not a competitive shooter. He was a combat infantry veteran and didn't look at things the same way as the folks who had spent years punching paper. It is said that he took one look at the "service rifles" the team was shooting and asked "Why are we shooting M14's?". The unit experts gave him a run down of the various ballistic issues involved. After hearing them out, he ordered that the unit was to pursue a match program for the M16. After all, it was the current issued "service rifle" and if it was good enough for the troops, by God, the team shooters should be using it also. For the first couple of years, the Army fielded split teams with some shooters using the M16's and some using the tried and proven M14's. Once the M16's had proven to be competitive, the full switch was made. As I understand it, by that time most of the shooters wanted to shoot the M16 anyway.

Bushmaster has made some goverment contract guns for the military. Of course, these would have the skinny mill. spec. barrel. They have not produced any large runs that I know of, but they have supplied military contract weapons. I have to agree that in general, the Bushmaster is very good quality. I own a couple of Colt AR's and a Bushmaster. In my opinion, the Bushmaster is a much better built gun. Mine are all set up to shoot competition so I will not attempt to speak to "out of the box" issues. I can tell you that I shoot in the combat matches where all shooters use an issued, rack grade M16. As you might expect, the best shooters finish at the top. The shooter must do their part, but I do believe the M16 is a very accurate platform. You speak of shooting the A1's. I have shot combat competition with the M16A1 and have to say that I much prefer the A2 models. We shoot out to 600 yards with the M193 55 grain ball ammo. It is tough shooting, but it is the same for everyone. Unlike yourself, I have developed a "fondness"" for them. Hey, if we all liked the same thing, it would be a pretty dull place wouldn't it.

[This message has been edited by Tom D (edited January 07, 2000).]
 
Two points here folks.

1, Lori Johnson was indeed the AMU Commander that was selected (it seems) due to his "muddy boot" experiances. I've know the good Col. since 1986 and consider him a great officer and an all round good guy. I've worked with him three times in my career and would be tickled to work with him again. He did indeed order the AMU to switch to M16s. I agree with his logic completely.

2, The AR (IMHO) owes a lot of it's accuracy to the lack of bedding required and the barrel nut. The lack of recoil and ergonomics are also factors.

However, I do not and have never liked the cartridge. The armchair warrior can expound all day on "wounding capability". I'll take an upclose and personal body slam over that anyday.

Giz
 
Gizmo99,

I also have to say that I also agree with Col. Johnson's logic. And time has proven that is was a good decision.
 
I think so also. I do not remember Col. J ever saying this to me, but he was not happy with the image of AMU soldiers using M14s while the line dogs had M16s. His reported idea was that the AMU needed to reflect the soldiers current equipment.

I would also like to point out that the M16 is close to taking the lead of longest issued service rifle. I *think* the '03 Springfield served for 33 years.

Giz
 
I'd like to weigh in here with a couple of points. The Army has had a couple of years head start in competition in using the M16 as a match weapon, which is one reason why they were winning matches with the -16 while the Corps was playing catch-up. Sour grapes? Naw, that would be like arguing which make of car is better in NASCAR - a futile undertaking. But we are winning some matches now, take that Army!

Is the weapon accurate? Inherently, in it's original, unmodified form I'd say it's no better than just about any other weapon fielded by the service in the last 100 years. Notice that I said in it's unmodified form. I came into the service when the M16A1 was still in vogue, and although I qualified as an expert with the weapon, I wasn't really blown away with it. Then, after I was given a taste of what a match modified M14 could accomplish, I had a bunch of peeve's for the -16. The trigger stank, and manipulating your sights was the biggest pain in the arse! When the A2 was introduced, I was happy with what was done with the sights (what match shooter wouldn't - with sight knobs on the back of the weapon where they belong?) But the trigger pull still sucked. In fact, with the three staged trigger that the 3-rnd burst option gave us, deliberate, accurate shooting was tricky indeed! So, it never really has had a good trigger.

There is the potential problem of torquing the barrel with a loop sling that is too tight. This can really affect your groups, a sorta "come again, go again" problem that will baffle a lot of coaches. It stems from the sling being attached to the barrel in a position where it can really affect the straightness of the barrel. But in fairness, this can be a problem with just about any rifle that doesn't have a free floating barrel.

Of late, there has been a lot of new technology that has really opened up a range of possibilities with the -16. The advent of VLD bullets allows M16 shooters to compete at 1000 yards. This was unheard of as little as 5-6 years ago! I myself scoffed at the idea. Really! A .223 at 1000 yards???

But think about it, a VLD bullet, launched at over 3000 fps, with it's high BC and low coefficient of drag... We were shooting 300 Win Mags HOT trying to get the .30 caliber MatchKings to perform like that, and now we have it in a low recoil package, with (almost) stock sights that can be adjusted down to a .25 minute.

But the weapon cannot perform at this level in stock form. Even the 1000 yard match loads cannot be loaded in the magazine, they have to be single loaded - they are too long to fit in the mag!

Also, they (match armorers) load enough lead ballast into these weapons to rival the M52C Winchester .22 that I shot as a young lad in the Rod & Gun club. We are talking weapons weighing upwards to 15 pounds here! Nice when shooting a 200 yard Rap, but not what you find off the rack.

So, is the weapon accurate? I guess that my answer would have to be that yes, it is - but only after it's been modified. Off the rack, I'd say that it's (at best) a 2 minute rifle - no better than average. This is not accurate when compared to match weaponry.

Accuracy is more a function of the shooter I think. It's like what my old shooting instructor would say, "It's not the dope on the weapon, it's the dope BEHIND the weapon!"

Unkel Gilbey



[This message has been edited by Unkel Gilbey (edited January 09, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top