How Accurate is Enough?

A lot of people make it sound like if your not shooting 1 MOA, you're never going to hit at "distance." There's nothing wrong with wanting more accuracy, but don't underestimate what can be done with an average rifle.
OreGear Shirts:
teespring.com/...
Discount Codes:
Faktory47: oregear10
Tru-Spec: "OG-TS" 20% off
Midwest Industries: "OREGONTRAIL" 10% off MI products
Cannae Pro Gear: "Ore15" 15% off
Forged from Freedom Shirts:
www.forgedfrom...?rfsn=1836139.95251d
Support my Channel on Patreon:
/ oregear
Check me out on social media:
OreGear on Instagram
/ oregear
www.OreGear.com

[@dp2pl8]

The people who argue about the accuracy of PSA guns probably can't outshoot the accuracy of the gun. If they could, they probably wouldn't even be looking at PSA 👀

[@mblake0420]

? I have a psa and can easily out shoot my barrel. I don't get your point

[@libertarianGO]

I have $8k plus ARs and i cant out shoot them (most days). But i can outshoot every PSA i have. That being said i have a couple PSA's that shoot sub MOA with a couple different loads, they just arent sub 0.5 MOA

[@mblake0420]

@@libertarianGO not many are sub .5

[@libertarianGO]

@@mblake0420 it's a custom built $8k gun with a polymer barrel (dracos) and dampening on every spring so that even the buffer doesnt make a sound when racking it.

[@libertarianGO]

@@mblake0420 if you were talking about the PSA's, yeah very few of them can even claim the sub MOA title. But some of PSA's uppers are tailored more for accuracy and ive had good results with them. Well good results for the money. They still dont compete with my fancy rifles but they can definitely make a Daniel Defense look like over priced asthetics when youre just looking at function

[@GBGuns]

Thank you for making this video. As an AK fan I've been trying to get people to realize that even 3MOA is still a head shot at 300 yards and anything beyond that you're pushing the terminal effectiveness of the round so... where's the problem?

[@Siskiyous6]

Is there any problem with a more accurate gun? At what cost? Many seem to be willing to pay 4 or 5 times the cost to get one or even 2 MOA better than a rack grade gun, and that is really silly unless you have a true need for it. The zombie apocalypse will not require anything better than 4 MOA.

[@crevecouer6772]

Thank you for saying so. I agree 100*.

[@libertarianGO]

I love my $8k SAPR's...😢 i also love my dirt cheap PSA's

[@24YOA]

IMO hitting a torso sized target at the maximum effective range of the weapon is more than accurate enough for a semi auto "gunfighter" weapon. Maybe I have abysmally low standards. If the weapon is more accurate, that's great. But I would want to be able to hit a torso sized target at the weapon's maximum effective range.

[@robolive123]

Good job; enjoyable video. Love that range:)

[@Blackcloud_Garage]

When it comes to the "MOA AR" I always think about the gunfight scene from Lone Survivor. I know it's a movie but the scope cam POV does a good job of showing what it's like to engage moving targets. Punching tiny little holes in a static piece of paper is fine but the real argument is how well "minute of man" on a target running from cover to cover is it.

[@silversoozookee2839]

I have a ultra nerdy love for fine machinery, So the "best" guns really tickle my fancy. HOWEVER, My inner caveman reigns supreme and loves an underdog even more, So a great shooter with a sub standard or crappy rifle outperforming a average shooter with a great rifle, Always makes me laugh. Hence my oddball love for my mosin nagant over any AR-15 I've owned

[@rbm6184]

How Accurate is Enough? Military standards of accuracy and endurance in a rifle are quite different than civilian standards. The standard accuracy of the M16/M4 in use with our military is required to be 5" at 100 yards with iron sights. First off consider the requirement facts from the engineering files from the government weapons production efforts. 1. acceptance accuracy for 1903 Springfield was 3" at 100 yards. 2. acceptance accuracy for M1 Garand was 5" at 100 yards. 3. acceptance accuracy for M14 was 5.5" at 100 yards and was waivered continually as it could not meet that. 4. acceptance accuracy for M16 series is 4.5" at 100 yards. 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 precision target grade. Having said that the more accurate the better and most AR15 mil spec rifles sold to civilians are capable on average of 1.5-2" at 100 yards with the right ammunition. Some more accurate and some less than average depending on the ammo but most are going to be below or at the military 5" at 100 yards requirement. However there are some manufacturers claiming mil spec that don't live up to those military standards and military standards while they will get the job done, are not the pinnacle of quality. I agree, train, practice, and use a variety of ammo to see what the rifle will do. Good video. Thanks for sharing.

[@ryankobilansky2500]

Level of precision neccesary for an engagement should be determined by user based upon the context of the scenario. Taking into account the size of your target or vital zone, whether animate/inanimate, expected engagement range, conditions of engagement (weather/wind/position), and precision potential of the rifle, ammo, optic, and shooter in combination. In other words, it's a system bro.... and it depends...

[@georgeshorter142]

So this was 7 shots to get 1 impact at 400 on a large target from a good position. This is not effective

[@OreGear]

👍🏻

[@BeReal918]

I wish you'd do a "part 2" but with a decent LPVO & AAC 77gr OTMs.

[@huyly605]

What state is this? the background is extremely beautiful!!

[@godzilla51196]

Most people should look at the places that they interact most with, and evaluate the distances involved, and ask themselves what is required to get an anatomically significant hit at those disrances. When I lived in Louisiana, I would be hard pressed to find a 200yd shot. In the midwest, its gonna depend on the season. Also ask yourself, "If I have a problem in one of the places I frequent, what tools am I likely to have to solve said problem?" Then adjusting your training/practice to address that. That unfortunately usually means more classes with your ccw and plain clothes, not recce rifles and war belts.

[@fattigla]

There is a lot that goes into the "1 MOA" gun. I'm happy with 2.5 out of a fighting rifle with m193, m855, etc. I rarely shoot ammo that is accurate enough to shoot 1MOA when training, and it works just fine at practical distances. Great video.

[@danielwade7.62x51]

Would like to see yoy put an lpvo on it and zero it with 77 grain match loads and to see the diffrence ..

[@RalphCompt0n]

Where is that range? Is it public or private?

[@OreGear]

It is private

[@BlakeJoy]

@@OreGear as in someone's own property or a club style range?

[@OreGear]

It’s someone property

[@RuBearUSA]

Thank you for the video!

[@sullathehutt7720]

It's important to keep the technology in perspective. What people often forget is just how much the R&D and manufacturing of firearms & ammunition have improved, even just in the past century. By First World War standards, even just your average stamped AK off the Izhevsk line, coupled with some boat-tailed FMJ rounds that don't even cost 50 cents each, would be competitve with your average issued bolt-action rifle back then in terms of accuracy at normal combat distances. An average mil spec M16 or M4 with any good 5.56 load would seem like a hand-crafted sniper rifle back then. A sub-MOA free-floated SPR with open-tip match rounds would seem like other-worldly technology. Like they just wouldn't even have been able to conceive of such precision back then, ESPECIALLY beyond 400 or 500 yards. That was just unthinkable to them. Many people will argue that their own WW1 and WW2 milsurps are very accurate weapons, especially issued sniper rifles of those wars, but chances are their rifle has been re-furbished or re-arsenalled in some fashion, and they are almost certainly firing modern commercial ammunition which is LEAGUES ahead of what the average trooper was issued back then. Ammunition today is MUCH more consistent and reliable than what our forebears had to work with. Optics today are also MUCH higher quality than even the best sniper optics of the World Wars.

[@edwinro77]

wuddup boiiiiiiiii

[@OreGear]

🙌🏼

[@jamesray1439]

The whole accuracy craze is a manifestation of late stage capitalism. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it is what it is. Feeling the need to buy a sub MOA gun and having zero money left over for an appropriate optic. Or for range ammo to train on is silly.