got my rifle set up with new geissele g2s trigger exellent trigger by the way . most test results seem to be 100 yard standard for grouping. i tried mine at 100 yards with pmc bronze 55 grain ammo 12 power scope and good rest was averaging 1.5 to 2.5 inch 5 shot groups. is this about the groups i can expect or is this base low tier rifle capable of moa or even sub moa with differand ammo or using lead slead cheat rest

That is as good or better, as a lot of high end AR's, depending on the barrel type. It should be capable with the right ammo.

Sub MOA with an AR using factory ammo is not realistic in my experience. It is a shock to many new AR shooters that a bolt rifle costing half as much will normally outshoot them. Might try to find its favorite ammo....or just enjoy the fast shooting action games it does best.
I shot my first AR for qualification in 1966 and earned my small arms expert ribbon with it and later with the M15 handgun.

__________________
Science plus Art

Sub MOA is possible, but it will take work. The AR is a 1MOA gun. The means it will shoot 1MOA with match grade loads that have the correct weight for the rifling twist rate.

I have a couple that will shoot 1" groups at 100 yards if I really take my time and use a bag to rest it on. 1.5" to 2" is more normal. I have another that will shoot under 1MOA, but it has a heavy stainless barrel on it with a Wylde chamber.

The truth is you bought a bottom end AR. Don't expect the best accuracy from it.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

To add to this a bit, the AR-15, M-16/M-4 were originally built as combat rifles with most shooting being at 100 yards or less.

The design has been improved on over the years but it's still a non-free floated barrel in many offerings, so like stated above, you can get MOA out of the rifle if you got a good one and do everything right. Sub-MOA is going to require some cash in upgrades and even then, you might not get it.

I am not familiar with the tolerances of S&W AR rifles. I own a 1994 production Bushmaster AR-15-A3 flattop with Winchester "USA" 45gr JHP Varmint ammo (product #2232), most lots were below 1/2 MOA @ 100 yards. I had 2 lots that were just under 1 MOA and 3 lots that were below 1/10 MOA. This was with a 4.5-12x40 Veri-X III and off a rest. At the time that was the cheapest American ammo on the market at $6.99 per 40 round box on sale. I picked up around 3000 rounds before the sale ended. (and only have about 500 left)

IN 1989 or 90 My best friend was an Ohio NG Battalion assistant armorer. Battalion HQ received 3, M-16's from the Army proving ground at Aberdeen, Md. These rifles were on old lower receivers (one was a X-15 with a 3 digit SN) all had signed target tags showing less than 1" 10 shot groups, shot with iron sights at 200 meters. These were not sniper rifles just good shooters to be issued to the troops.

The current state of ammunition on the market is terrible. The biggest problem for reloading is high quality primers. The best on the open market is the CCI BR-2. The current 55 gr FMJ BT are also very inconsistent in weight and profile. I have one 1000 count box of Winchester Army canceled contract 55's left from 25K I bought in the early 80's when the Army went to the steel core green tipped bullet. There is a world of difference between them and the new Hornady's.

Without good ammo you will not be able to determine if your rifle is accurate or not!

Ivan

No, I don't think this is true. The Marines and Army have always trained at 500 meters. I'm pretty sure that 500 meters was part of the original requirements.

Even so, it's important to remember that the M&P Sport II is an M4 clone, not an M16 clone.

EDIT: I just read the Army manual. They use a 200 meter zero. They state that this gives a zero that is closer to POA for most circumstances. They also talk about shooting out to 300 meters. So, yeah, it's not just a 100 yard gun.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

First, what rifle are you wanting to compare this "low tier" and "bottom end" rifle to? If you are comparing to a rifle that is "mil-spec", such as a Colt LE6920 or a BCM, then don't expect all that much difference in accuracy.

If you are talking about the Sport vs. a Larue Predator... The Larue dang well better outshoot the Sport. But I bet that even though it is 3x the price, it doesn't shoot 3x tighter groups.

Personally, I think a 2 MOA group using PMC is pretty good. Get yourself some good ammo from Black Hills, Hornady, or other manufacturer known for quality, accurate ammo and give it another go.

thanks for info. when i was shooting the wind was blowing about 20 mph had my target shaking a lil.. will wind have much effect at 100 yards and i can not help myself and let my barrel cool i usuallly shoot a 20 round box before checking my targets downrange[ multiple 6 inch targets 5 shots each] does 20 shots through barrel inside of 2 minutes effect accuracy by barrel heating......and it is sad my cheap savige axis bolt with cheap ammo shoots sub moa but it is not near as much fun to shoot as the mp15

2 moa is fine for a battle rifle. Once you start agonizing over sub moa accuracy with a battle rifle you'll end up disappointed with an empty wallet.

As far as zero... I would never ever use a 200 meter zero. A 50 yard zero is much better! Riddle of the day...

I stand corrected on the range then. I think we are still in agreement that the platform is generally not a sub-MOA rifle.

At 100 yards, wind will have some effect, especially if your target is moving around as well. You have multiple things working against you here outside of the rifle design.

You also can't really compare a bolt rifle to an AR-15. The barrel isn't free floating, so even just resting the hand guard on a bag can flex the barrel, especially if you are putting any weight on it with your hand.

Semi-auto actions tend to (but aren't always) not be as accurate as a bolt rifle either. Notice how the majority of sniper rifles are still bolt actions.

Savage rifles as well as AR-15s are generally known for not having great triggers. That will also have an effect on accuracy. It's a roll of the dice and sometimes people get a good trigger by chance.

This is not to beat up on your Savage since Savage has a loyal following for various precision rifle applications. They are a good rifle. This is also not a bash on the AR platform. One just has to take the design of the rifle into account on what it can and can't do and how much time and money you want to put into it to improve it's accuracy.

There are a ton of other factors that go into this but it kind of goes outside the scope of the thread and people don't want to read a book on a forum.

I get it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, as this is just my opinion/observation, but wouldn't the AR15 be more effective at longer ranges than the M4 as it has a 16" barrel rather than a 14.5"? Granted, it's not the 20" on the M16, but to me, the AR15 should be a pretty good median between the M4 and M16.. Makes me scratch my head as to why the Marines just don't go with an M4 style rifle with a mid length gas system and 16" barrel since they talk about abandoning/are starting to abandon the M16 and going with the M4, yet want the benefits of both.. Keep in mind I'm not in the military, so I'm just mentioning what I've heard and mentioning my opinion as what I see that might be effective.. I'm not trying to sound all BA or anything so I apologize if it comes across that way.

I spent a lot of money and built a AR15 that will shoot sub 1/2 MOA best group so far at 100yds is 0.306 for 5 shots. But shooting it off the bench is all it is good for. Your Sport will be a lot more fun. My MP15 Mid Moe shot terrible groups with factory ammo around 2.3 MOA then I fed it my reloads and it dropped to 1 MOA. Don

__________________
USN Retired/VN VET
M&P X5

Everyone's a comedian.

Um, well, there are a few things wrong here.

The AR-15 and M16 are almost the same rifle. The only difference is the selector. The M16 has Safe/Semi/Burst modes while the AR-15 only has Safe/Semi. They both have fixed stocks and 20" barrels.

The M4 comes with a 16" barrel and a collapsible stock.

Now, there is an almost infinite variety of configurations these come in. The most common in the military is still the M16 (actually the M16A1 or M16A2). In the Air Force, the M4 is the most common amongst the Security Forces. At least it's what I see every day. Select units with special missions can have rifles or carbines in almost any configuration. Rest assured, the military will have a specific designation for each one, but I don't know what they are. So, while some units might have carbines with 14.5" barrels, they are not common. Also, they would be issued to units who are specifically going to urban areas.

Is a longer barrel more effective at longer range? The common wisdom says yes, but there are some who say not. I have been researching this very subject a lot lately. Suffice it to say, at distances of 500 meters and less, the difference between 20" and 16" barrels is nil.

That's the short version. If you want the long version, including supporting facts, start a new thread.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

This is my definitive word on the accuracy of an AR-15 without spending thousands of dollars.

I shot this target:


With this rifle:

It has a 16" stainless barrel with a "heavy" contour. Using Wolf Gold ammo, i.e. cheap ammo.

The optic is a PA Advanced Microdot with no magnification. The dot size is 2MOA. Because of the dot size, replicating this group would be no small feat. Certainly not with my eyes.

This group...


...was shot with this rifle...

...again with cheap ammo. This rifle has a 20" barrel that is Mil-Spec. The optic is a 1-4x24 and was set to 4x and I used a bag, not the bipod, for a rest.

So, yes, the M&P Sport is capable of 1MOA shooting, but 1.5-2MOA is a more realistic expectation. Sub MOA is not.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

Rastoff, you are mistaken. The M4 comes with a 14.5" barrel. That is the specification for the barrel. And the M4 is now the most common, as both the Army and the Marines are issuing the M4 to infantry units.

Bad Request

OK. I'm mistaken.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

I was setting asides the full auto/burst capabilities and just looking at the basic common design aspects, but I understand where you're coming from.

__________________
Isaiah 43:1-3

Yes, setting aside the semantics, the 14.5" barrel is competent out to 300 yards. It's when you get beyond those distances that barrel length (really bullet speed) becomes really important.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

You have that entirely backwards.

Yes to MOA question. I know my Sport can do it if I do my part.
It surprises me with its accuracy almost every time out.
Jim

Barrel length, velocity, ammo and effectiveness are all about the intended purpose.

My rifle is for offhand CQB. I live in the thick woods of Tennessee.

I use 5.56 NATO Fed M855. I chose it for close range light barrier penetration characteristics. Rated muzzle velocity is 3020fps from a 20in barrel.

I use a 16in 1-7 barrel that delivers a 2928fps avg muzzle velocity measured with my chronograph. An effective lethal wound channel (M855 ain't the best anyway) is supposed to be at or above 2500fps. I'm at 2500fps at 150yds. A 20in barrel would be at 175yds. With my red dot I'm good for point and click shooting to about 200yds. It's about 2moa ammo. So everything is in the ballpark I'm looking for.

Now I could use PMC X-Tac that has the same projectile but with a rated velocity of 3100fps. With my 16in barrel, X-Tac would deliver about the same velocity as a 20in barrel with the Fed I'm using. Illustrates how ammo choices can nullify barrel length. Choices choices.... Fed availability is much better and I can find it at some significant discounts so it works for me.

The "effectiveness" over 300yds 20in vs 16in? My 16in will have a calculated velocity of about 1837 at 400yds. A 20in barrel about 1907fps. An effectiveness difference of a big yawn with the ammo and designated use of my rifle.

With a 14.5in barrel I'm guessing you'd probably give up another 40-50fps muzzle velocity over a 16in barrel. Never measured one.

So what barrel and ammo do you guys choose and why?

IMI 77gr....

You are correct. It IS quite capable of doing it with the right ammo AND a shooter that did/does his homework and is also using the proper shooting techniques, like shoulder placement of the buttstock, cheek placement, proper grip, finger placement, trigger control, breathing... Then there's the sight alignment getting that front sight post dead center in that rear ring or groove lined up on the target.

__________________
THIS WE'LL DEFEND ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

All that and one thing more. Luck. But that holds true with most everything.
Jim

Maybe try both and compare results.

I haven't done extensive testing with my Sport. But from what I've seen it shoots very accurate at 35 yards. I was cutting blades of grass in two with every shot pretty much. It wasn't regular grass it was a tall type of grass that was planted as ornamental stuff. But the individual blades of grass are similar to what you might see in a field, not a yard. Still to shoot that well is pretty darn good. I was aiming with a laser I have mounted currently. I haven't put a scope on it yet. That will be needed to really see the capability for 100 yard accuracy. And most lesser powered scopes aren't really good enough to let you know just how accurate your rifle is. You can't expect sub-MOA groups when you're using a scope that blocks out a bigger area than that at 100 yards. You need a target type scope with high power to really know the ultimate capability of your rifle. The fact I have the A2 sight on my Sport may be a factor with a high power scope. I just don't know. Some here probably do. It seems like the scope will be on a high axis compared to your average bolt action rifle. I have shot this rifle at 175 yards and it was doing minute of man quite easily with iron sights. That's all I expect from the rifle anyway and that was the first day I shot it at that distance. I'm about to do some more of that today if the wind isn't bad.

You also need a pile of different types of ammo so you can find which one your individual rifle likes. And you need lots of time and patience to work through all those things. Knowing which type of grip works best comes into play. Some shoot better if held tightly to the shoulder. Others shoot better with a loose hold. Cheek weld is important. And doing it the same way every time when you learn where to put your cheek is also very important.

Determining the ultimate accuracy of any rifle is a long process IMO. It requires doing things you aren't likely going to do on a permanent basis. Who wants a 36X scope on an AR? But I learned long ago that it takes a scope of that power with high quality glass to really tell you what you need to know.

Mostly it just takes practice. If you want to know it will take lots of practice.

My suggestion is to go with what the rifle is intended to do. To be honest what I'm hearing here makes me think my SKS is very similar when it comes to the accuracy of this rifle. I just don't believe that though. What I know for sure is that as well as my SKS has worked over the years swapping mags with that rifle is a tricky move especially if I was under pressure. Plus that rifle gets really hot, really fast. There are many advantages of the AR system, trust me. But I've shot some high quality AR's at the range including an AR-10 with lots of mods intended to give it better accuracy and it didn't come close to the accuracy of my .223 Savage 12 LRPV. That's not to say it wasn't accurate. It was. But if accuracy is your thing buy a good bolt action rifle. That Savage cost double what my AR cost BTW. It's one of the best Savage makes.

Still I expect this Sport to be plenty accurate. Most accuracy is in trigger pull anyway. If you can master that, and it can be done even on bad triggers, you'll be 90% of the way to being accurate.

for anybody looking for a good source on trajectories of various calibers look up gunnersden they have done alot of work plotting bullet trajectories that is why i go with 200 yard zero it generally works very well with anything i might plink at.....gonna get some match grade ammo and try another go at the range see if i can shrink my groups a lil

There is typically little difference in trajectories among even very different factory loads.

For example. Here is a 40gr Cor-bon BlitzKing compared to the 62gr Federal ammo I shoot. Very different animals.

Take a look at the graph and "Drop Inches" column A&B. Ask yourself if you would really know the difference.

Even some .308 compared to 5.56 there is little difference. In fact, the bullet drop reticles on some scopes are identical for these two calibers. Primary Arms ACSS reticle is advertised for both .308 and 5.56.

Gun data.org is a good tool.

i do a lot of hunting mostly use 7mm.. gunnersden sets up practial shooting for say 7mm on whitetail deer kill zone is 4 inches so sugesstion is with 1.5 inch scope center to barrel center basic medium mount calculates roughly1.7 in high 100 yards 1.3 high 200 yards 240 yard zero and 3.3 inch low 300 yards so inside of 280 yards the bullet is never more than 2 inches high or low gives good platform for most shooting distances.. 223 ballistics are very simmiliar for most basic shooting i totaly agree 50 yards is good to zero gun in at just saying if 50 is first zero somewhere between 160 to 220 the bullet should re-zero so were kind of in the same ballpark on zero i just look for the second zero at 200 and the origional 50 yard zero will be within 1/4 in high or low

I got to shoot my Sport a few times yesterday. I was shooting at about 80 yards and it was hitting very tight groups considering I was shooting with the stock sights. I thought it was plenty accurate. I would have to do several things to figure out the ultimate accuracy but for what this rifle is designed to do it seems plenty accurate.

Nothing wrong with using irons

And for those who use optics, for the love of God, please make sure that your irons are zeroed..

__________________
Isaiah 43:1-3

In all reality, Iron Sights are where beginners need to start, get proficient with and master first.

__________________
THIS WE'LL DEFEND ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

I never owned a scope until I bought a Marlin 60 that came with one in about 1992. I was in my mid-30's at the time. We just didn't have much use for one the way we saw things. We hunted small game that moves a lot (squirrels) and finding a running squirrel with a scope is almost impossible. A WWII sniper taught us a lot about shooting when we were kids. He never used a scope. He didn't like them at all. But I saw him drop a crow from 300 yards with iron sights. He taught us that if you can see it you can shoot it and you really don't need a scope. For his purposes I'm sure he didn't have need of a scope. He wasn't making 1000 yard shots in the war. He was likely in a tree or a tower picking off humans who were running. Again that would have been easier with irons.

I like my scopes now because I like shooting long distances and I like shooting tiny groups on targets. Both generally require a scope IMO. At least for me they do. But I do know how to use the irons.

I hear this a lot, but I don't agree with it. The fundamentals are the same with optics or irons. How is "mastering" irons the right way to go?

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

The fundamentals of lining up front and rear sights for aiming as well as adjusting front and rear sights are significantly different compared to a scope with a turret and arrow pointing hey dummy turn this way to go up. Ever seen someone at the range get that puzzled look on their face when it comes to which way to adjust irons to get point of impact to move the way they want? The art of shooting with both eyes open with irons following a moving target is a lot different than just sitting at a bench peering through a 20x optic with one eye closed trying to hit a bullseye, or the ease of using a 1x red dot that is forgiving of a less than disciplined cheek weld. Some ARs have an elevation adjustable rear sight so you got to know the right method to zero. Heck, there's people who come here just to figure out how to mechanically adjust an A2 front sight post. I can't remember anyone ever asking how to turn a scope turret. There's a lot of distinct and fundamental differences and beyond what I've mentioned.

Now I might not use the term "master", but a fundamental knowledge and ability to use the equipment that comes with the rifle like a Sport makes good sense before moving on to a Tactical Death Ray Power Zoom Kaleidoscope.

Of course when you get old and half blind like me those irons play less of a role...

Well when I keep both eyes open I get two front sights and keep forgetting which is the right one I am supposed to be using.

__________________
USN Retired/VN VET
M&P X5

Yes, I'm aware of how irons work. Most adjustable iron sights have markings telling which way to turn them as well. It's just that most don't read them. Even the A2 has an arrow telling which way to turn it.

My question was, why do they have to learn the irons first? What value is it? Even with the less-than-desirable cheek weld when using a red dot, is not detrimental to using the red dot. How will using the irons make them a better user of a scope or red dot?

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

IMO, the shooter who can use the iron sights is the better shooter. But, when starting a new shooter out, especially a young one, I will typically start them with a red dot. I want them to get hits and enjoy shooting. We can get the fundamentals down after they are hooked. Nothing frustrates a new shooter more than continually missing the target.

In general, I think those who say to learn irons first are often lamenting the fact that some new AR buyers (and who are new to rifles for that matter) start out with mounting all sorts of aiming devices, scopes, lasers, red dots.... before even having shot the rifle for the first time. So in that regard, I think there is some value in first learning the operation of the rifle they bought, including irons, before outfitting it with the latest China-made tactical kaleidoscope. Having some hands-on experience with the rifle is useful for the newbie to gain a bit of knowledge, skill and perspective leading to better choices, whatever they might.

I am with Rastoff on this one. Why learn something if you are never going to use it. Said the same thing when they wanted me to take Latin in high school. I don't plan on having to pick up someones AR and use it when mine goes down at the range. Btw I can shoot irons just don't like to or need to.

__________________
USN Retired/VN VET
M&P X5

Shoot in the middle. (It's kind of like the way it used to be when folks still drank and drove...only in this instance you have a weapon safely pointed down range with no one in harm's way. )

__________________
642-1, M&P15 TS

I suppose it makes sense to know how to use them if your batteries go out...or worse yet, your batteries go out and you need your rifle in a self or home defense situation. (Not speaking about you, of course, but a hypothetical Joe who becomes too reliant on technology.)

Most of us hated when Uncle stopped letting us carry the firearms we owned and qualified with on the job (as long as they were above .380.) But, it made a lot of sense that they went to one handgun that everyone was trained on.

Before that, many didn't know how to operate their fellow agents' firearms whether handguns or long guns...safeties, releases, charging.

I agree with Phil that knowing the fundamentals is, well, fundamental. Anyone that doesn't care to learn is asking for trouble imho.

__________________
642-1, M&P15 TS

Goes for a lot of things, but I'm fully for knowing how to use irons if you have even the slightest intention of using your AR as a HD/SD option. It's good for "just in case".. It's just like the weapon, you know, you never hope you have to use it, but if you ever do, you need to know how to.

__________________
Isaiah 43:1-3

Well sure. The primary sighting system on my rifle is a 1x red dot. The flip irons are referred to as BUIS.

Most average AR pattern rifles will shoot about 2-3 MOA which is good enough for their intended purpose. A non-chrome lined barrel will generally shoot somewhat better as will a free floated barrel. Heavier barrels will generally not shoot any better than thinner barrels unless the shots are fired in fairly rapid sequence in which the barrel becomes heated. The barrel length as long as it is adequate to stabilize the bullet has no effect on accuracy but does of course effect trajectory.

The speciality AR rifles will shoot about 1 MOA if fed the proper ammunition. Most of these do not have chrome lined barrels and also have free floated barrels. Even these have trouble maintaining accuracy with M855 ammunition because of ill centered penetrators.

The key here is consistency. Just about any rifle will occasionally shoot small groups but will not consistently do so.

The exception are the highly tuned competition rifles which will indeed shoot less than 1 MOA. But these are not intended for general use.

Here's the thing about ARs and iron sights for me; many don't come with any sights at all. I just looked at the S&W website and they have 25 models of AR rifles. Eleven of them don't come with sights.

Of those that buy any kind of AR, most will put some kind of optic on them almost immediately.

Maddmax said that learning the irons first was beneficial before you put an optic on. I'm still curious to hear why he believes that is? Are we just regurgitating what we've heard on the internet or do we really know why we suggest these learning concepts?

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

Do you know how to drive a vehicle with a manual transmission? I may choose to drive an automatic as my daily driver, but if I had to use my old CJ-5 as a daily driver, I could... because I know how to use a manual transmission.

Same thing with a rifle. Optics make it easier, but if I know how to use irons, I can fall back to them if I ever needed to... more rounded skills makes for a better shooter.