No bench, just free standing. Remember I have zero experience shooting any rifle (other than AR-15 stuff without precision optics), so I'm sure there's plenty of slop in there from the user. Placing 6 shots inside a 2" group isn't going to win any shooting matches, but it's probably good enough to drop a hog I'd guess. All of the shots were close to the center of the target, it's just that the largest distance between any 2 shots was 2".
Our M16A1's were manufactured by a few different companies including Colt and H&R. You couldn't really tell the difference other than by the manufacturer's stamp on the receiver. Same thing with the 1911's for that matter. Most of the ones we carried were made by Union Switch & Signal. Our arms room had some AKM's as well, which we used for training and familiarization. As cool as they were, the M16's were more accurate and more controllable in rapid fire and full auto. That said, a "bucket list" weapon would be an AK-47. Not the common AKM termed an "AK 47" but an actual AK47, with a milled steel receiver. The Russians never made a lot of them. Well they never made a lot of the first three versions of the Kalashnikov. The original concept was to have a stamped steel receiver for light weight and economy, and the original Type 1 AK had some durability problems - the stamped metal used for the receiver was too thin. So they used a thicker gauge stamping for the Type 2. The problem they had with that one, was that they couldn't reliably produce the stampings to spec and the reject ratio was too high, so they switched to a milled steel receiver and adopted that as the AK47. Eventually, they did get the production issues with the thicker stamped receivers worked out, and those went in to mass production and export as the AKM.
I would zero it off a bench, I’d zero 100yrds depending. But 2” at 50 spreads out a long way as you go, 4” at 100, 8” at 200, old being able to hit a paper plate being good enough is more or less true, but 2” at 50 I would tighten that up largely before I used the weapon on a animal or for defensive. You will also find a bolt gun easier to shoot, only one recoil pulse, vs 3 on the AR.
What are you going on about? It’s 1 recoil pulse bolt vs 3 for a automatic, 22LR or a 50BMG, I’m clearly not even talking about energy.
You are the one claiming a bolt gun is easier to shoot than a semi-auto because of those "recoil impulses". I don't think you have any idea how to manage recoil. Nor do you understand the recoil felt by the shooter when shooting a bolt gun vs a semi-auto. I'm done with you....
They are. It’s a fact. And don’t put recoil impulse in quotes just because you have no idea what I’m talking about. https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/driving-a-gas-gun-vs-a-bolt-gun.113704/
Yeah, whatever rifle I end up with will have higher quality glass than what that Savage came with and I'll throw it on a lead sled to zero the optic. I agree that 100yds is where I'd do it since I'm sure the 100-200yd range is where I'd expect to take most shots.
Since you went there….zero at the distance your optic instructions specify. Except for plain jane fixed power duplex crosshairs. Zero those at MPBR for the caliber.
Having put more than a few thousand rounds through numerous M16s and AR15s (and Weatherbys, and Remingtons, and so on) and I can't tell you how many bolt and lever action rifles over the years... this is utter nonsense. It really sounds like the kind of theoretical exercise with no basis in reality that get bred on forums. I don't even know how you'd define "easier to shoot". Less felt recoil? AR/M16 by a mile (and by design). I've got a bolt action .222 that has more felt recoil than my .223 AR. In neither case does it really matter if the first shot goes where it needs to. And yes, I did read the discussion you linked by some random guys on one of thousands of Internet forums. Not exactly what I'd call a terribly credible source of information. But hey, by all means, believe what you want. And you'll never in a hundred years hear me say bolt guns don't rule. If I owned any guns at all, there would likely be a 6:1 ratio of bolt actions to AR, and maybe the odd lever or percussion rifle as well. Alas, all of my guns were lost in a tragic boating accident years ago.
Let me think about this for a second (yes I did read the comments.) In a typical gas operating system, for all intents and purposes it's a bolt action, until the bullet passes past the gas port (out the muzzle, really) so there probably isn't any real buffering to speak of. In a delayed blowback/recoil operated weapon, like your typical semi auto pistol or .50 caliber M2 BMG, there is significant recoil buffering. Okay so your argument is the additional shakes and shimmies a gas operated auto introduces somehow makes it inherently more difficult to shoot than a bolt action. On what basis? The bottom line, and this is not new or earth shattering, is that you don't take successive shots until you have achieved a stable and clear sight picture. That really applies to... anything except a full auto weapon.
Well what is on the paper plate? Smoked ribs, I'd hit it every single time. A Klick away. Ten klicks away.
One is inherently a more stable platform, this is more noticeable when doing precision shooting at range where you want to call your shots and see the impact to refine your data. I said nothing about one having less felt recoil, just one has more “movements” for lack of a better term. You can read what I linked to if you want more info, probably not a issue for a fudd shooter, or just blasting away inside of a few hundred yards.
For all practical purposes, recoil doesn't affect the shot. At least not in normal competitive pistol or rifle. 2" at 50 yards is OK but not great for a 1911, and probably great for any duty issue pistol. Lousy for any rifle or carbine. But.... I had .223 AR with a cheap brand of ammo that would shoot about 5" at 100 yards. Not keyholing, just wild shots. I thought the gun was crap. But then I tried it was some decent ammo, 55 gr Hornady I think, and it was down to .75". So my point is, some cartridges in some guns can just shoot poorly. In my experience, it's rare to see a 22LR, .308, or 45 in a gun that doesn't rattle shoot poorly. But...some 9mm, .223's, and I'm sure others, can be squirrely in some guns. Finally, yes, pistol shooting will help with rifle shooting...at least bullseye pistol with bench rifle. I could never shoot rifle worth a damn until I learned a little bit about pistol shooting. Now I can do "ok".
What the hell kind of defense are you expecting to need that requires less than 2” groups at 50 yards? Zombie horde attacks? your posts come off as either having nothing more than google style experience about fire arms or just trolling.
I’d wager I put far more rounds down range than you. A 6.5 scoped bolt action hunting rifle that can’t group better than 2” at 50yrds (4MOA) is broken. I don’t use broken rifles for anything other than, well fixing them, or going into the parts bin.
It is. But it’s pretty typical for a new shooter standing. And, other than a zombie attack, I can’t imagine a need to shoot 50 yards for defense.
I'm sure it was mostly this ^. I wasn't taking a ton of time in between shots or trying to see how absolutely accurate I could be. I mainly just wanted to experience the ergonomics of the rifle, trigger/bolt feel, and get an overall idea about the recoil/comfort. Three of the shots were fairly quick in succession as I was playing out more of the "hog hunting scenario" where I might have to cycle multiple rounds quickly (although I wasn't changing the target location). I figured it was worth trying to see how quickly I could cycle the bolt and get back on target. I have no doubt that this rifle, budget as it may have been, is fully capable of sub-moa groups all day long @ 100yds, much less 50.
You could ask a firearms question on a gardening forum and it would bring out the bravado and bloviating with posters puffing their virtual chest and claiming dominance by listing the kinds of firearms they own. As expected, this POA thread displays all the elements of a normal firearms discussion. You should really ask about 9mm vs. .45 or whether you want a first or second focal plane reticle.
On a hog hunt you’re probably not shooting unsupported standing, tripods are VERY popular for hogs, as is just shooting off the truck or ATV. The nice thing on the tripod is how smooth and stable it is for changing to a second, often moving target If you’re shooting off random objects a bag is nice to have, this is one of my favorites, I can snap it around the scope and body of the rifle, plop it on nearly anything and have a good foundation, if shooting prone I use it with my bipod and it works for a great rear bag. Bag I use more for PRS stuff however, but is small and handy to have in your gear bag
What about clips vs magazines? I have never understood why anyone cares if someone calls a mag a clip.
Sure they do, they control the plane Just like a clip and a mag both hold ammo It’s just education, a mag and a clip are two different things just the same as with the elevator
One actually matters and the other just indicates who like to point out that they are superior to others by being pedantic.
No, it’s a matter of facts, a mag and a clip are NOT the same. https://www.americanfirearms.org/magazine-vs-clip-a-comparison/
I did not say they were the same, now did I? No, I didn't. But thank you for proving my point in previous post.
You don’t understand why someone who actually works with firearms would care if you call two different things the same thing? The point has been proven, but not the way you think…. I never realized we had so many fudds on here, but I guess demographics wise it does make sense.
Why do you care? Because you can use it to belittle people. That's literally the only reason it matters. The only time it would make any difference to anyone in any way is if there was a clip of ammo and a mag of the same kind of ammo sitting beside each other and someone asked you to hand them the clip, but they meant the mag. In literally any other case - everyone with a brain would know what you were asking for. You've perfectly provided an example of why it bugs me. You aren't going to die if someone calls a mag a clip. Get over yourself.
I know the difference. I have guns that use each. It does not offend me if someone uses the wrong term. I don't assume they are a moron because they used the wrong term.
Because it’s a different thing lol I don’t personally care if you call a dog a banana, but it doesn’t magically make the two the same thing. If I’m at the range and I have my two weapons, one with a clip and one with a mag, I ask for a mag and you hand me the clip…it ain’t going to work, because it’s a different thing. This isn’t to make you feel bad, anymore than a dictionary is to make people feel bad, they are different words for different objects, sorry. With my students, if they call the Delta on the chart Bravo, I will correct them and show them where to find the answer, like I did with you and the article on mag vs clips, I’m not doing this to feel superior, I’m doing it to try to help, and because no matter what they say, I won’t say Delta and Bravo are the same thing for my student, anymore than I would say the word clip and mag are interchangeable.
If you ask for a mag and they hand you a mag for your 9mm instead of the .45 they are still wrong. Has nothing to do with the word mag or clip. 99% of the time for practical purposes the words are interchangeable and using the wrong one is a mistake but a meaningless one.
Negative It’s still a different part, that does a different thing. If I ever meet your flight instructor I’ll have to buy the poor soul a round.
That's another good one, though there is a difference in purpose between a bullet, shell / cartridge. It's still a situation where everyone knows what you mean so STFU about it.
