Finally got to shoot some of my new guns... some thoughts.

[Jwryan84]

JEBUS ladies hug it out.

Back to guns. I'd say you are asking too much from 855. Use better ammo if you are wanting tighter groups, 855 isn't made or known to shoot sub MOA. My buddy has had real good luck with the 45 grain HP from Wally. I choot 77 IMI razor core for groups.

 

[NikatKimber]

JEBUS ladies hug it out.

Back to guns. I'd say you are asking too much from 855. Use better ammo if you are wanting tighter groups, 855 isn't made or known to shoot sub MOA. My buddy has had real good luck with the 45 grain HP from Wally. I choot 77 IMI razor core for groups.

I was going to bring this up.

I ran into this on my first AR, it was a learning experience after reading on the inturwebzorz that everyone's AR shot 1/100 MOA with a cheap barrel and bulk ammo. IIRC, the mil-spec requirement is 3MOA. So a "mil-spec" barrel with "mil-spec" ammo will shoot 3moa.

I quit expecting even MOA accuracy from cheap barrels with cheap ammo. Even with a good barrel (not great, but good), and my own reloaded 55gr, I get 1.5-2moa at best.

 

[JD8]

Yeah so.....anyhoo.....

Those Springfield Mod 2 guns are awesome. Got the Service sized 9mm, love it. Gonna get the PRP kit for it soon.

Oh and if you shoot a decent amount.... Uplula on everything. I save my hand strength for other things.....

 

[tRidiot]

Been to Appleseed. As for the springs, these mags have been loaded full for a year or more, sitting in the drawer. Anyways...

Glad to hear that the ammo is likely part of the problem. I know I'm not a great shooter, hell, I've never been a shooter in my life except the last few years and have never shot my rifles much outdoors at a decent distance. And well, even with a 3-9 scope, I had a helluva time seeing where I was hitting with these little 5.56 rounds at 100 yards. I obvious need a lot more practice, but that is what I intend. I've got a 6.8 I plan on shooting some longer distance with, but I need to learn some better technique first.

Does anyone else have trouble seeing at 100 yards? I mean, lotta people have just a 1-4x on their ARs and I have some of those, some holo sights, some red dots, etc. Good enough for minute-of-man or minute-of-pig, I suppose, but does anyone shooting small targets beyond 100 yards need something more than 9x magnification? Or are my eyes just crappy?I think I'm in the 20/25 or 20/30 range with my contacts, so I didn't expect it to be that bad. I had built this gun thinking of prairie dogs at 300-400 yrds, but at this stage I definitely think I'll need more mag and much better ammo, better training/personal accuracy notwithstanding.

 

[Shadowrider]

tR it's a mater of physics. When you start shrinking the scale down you don't have the leeway or extra margin in your design that the bigger guns have. What I'm saying is that small semi-auto guns are closer to the line of not being reliable, look at compact 1911s for instance. They can be made to run perfectly, but they have to be perfect and require more maintenance than their full size brethren. A design engineer is going to do all he can to see that it doesn't get crossed.

Also I'd note that you ought to try loading a Colt 9mm AR mag or an Uzi mag. After about two of them you will gladly use a mag loader.

 

[tRidiot]

Wow. People aren't listening. Lol. Ok. Forget the damn mag issue, forget the damn loader issue. Sheesh. I never said I wouldn't use a mag loader, in fact I've said several times I DO use one for other mags! I'm simply saying it's a poor design that makes it so difficult that people CANNOT load them without an extra device. Wow. Just wow.

I really wasn't starting this thread to talk about the Shield mags - it's a well-documented issue. This was made into an issue by someone else's butthurt who thought I was mad because I was adamant that this is a bad design. That's all. Please, people... for God's sake, get over the mags. lol

 

[nofearfactor]

Bought a Shield used from someone here a few years ago and, meh, it was alright, sold it to someone else here. Bought my first XD new, a 9mm sub, when I first moved out here in 03' to alternate with my G13 and loved it. Bought the XDM and XDS when they came out and didnt like either, sold them both. Bought the XD sub 9 Mod.2 when it first came out and love it and the new grips.

P.S: I dont need to use it but sometimes I will use the XD stock magloader when loading up a bunch of mags before going shooting- it kind of makes it easier but is actually slower than doing it by hand IMO.

 

[lkothe]

What twist is your AR barrel Doc?

 

[nofearfactor]

How do you like the fiber optic front sights on the Mod.2, (and the Shield)?

 

[dennishoddy]

Glad to hear that the ammo is likely part of the problem. I know I'm not a great shooter, hell, I've never been a shooter in my life except the last few years and have never shot my rifles much outdoors at a decent distance. And well, even with a 3-9 scope, I had a helluva time seeing where I was hitting with these little 5.56 rounds at 100 yards. I obvious need a lot more practice, but that is what I intend. I've got a 6.8 I plan on shooting some longer distance with, but I need to learn some better technique first.

Does anyone else have trouble seeing at 100 yards? I mean, lotta people have just a 1-4x on their ARs and I have some of those, some holo sights, some red dots, etc. Good enough for minute-of-man or minute-of-pig, I suppose, but does anyone shooting small targets beyond 100 yards need something more than 9x magnification? Or are my eyes just crappy?I think I'm in the 20/25 or 20/30 range with my contacts, so I didn't expect it to be that bad. I had built this gun thinking of prairie dogs at 300-400 yrds, but at this stage I definitely think I'll need more mag and much better ammo, better training/personal accuracy notwithstanding.

Ammo is going to be one of the deciding factors if your shooting long range. Even at 100 yds ammo will make one heck of a difference. For example, as a hand loader I have the ultimate QC over how my rounds are loaded. A couple of weeks ago we had a rifle match that was everything from 7 yds to 300 yds in the same match. I tried two different 55 grain bullets using the same powder, brand of brass, dies, etc. The Speer was lucky to hold a group smaller than 3" at 100 yds, the sierra bullet was at 3/4".
At 300 yds on paper, the Speer was minute of a 12" circle at best. It was flying everywhere. The Sierra held its group at 2 1/2" consistently. It might have been better, but I was shooting off of a single bag on the handguard, and my hand under the buttstock. What I could have done with the speer is to tailor that bullet to a load that would have likely made it into a tack driver as well, but since the Sierra did so well, and I have a lot of those laying around, I went with the Sierra. When that's gone, there is a box of 1000 Hornady 55 grain that will need to be tailored to the rifle.
Just for the record, The 55 grain Sierra's didn't shoot well in my M4 carbine, same twist. The M4 loves .45 grain varmint loads.
Guns have personalities. Something you have to live with.
If one just goes around finding cheap ammo and expecting the rifle to shoot like a tack driver, they will be disappointed.
I use a fixed 3 Power scope on the 300 yd range that is on the M4 to ring steel. Its a 12" plate. Pretty obvious when its hit. Another AR has a 3X9 to shoot paper and steel at 300 as well. Even though you can't see the hit on paper, you keep point of aim, and have to walk/drive down to see how it grouped, unless you have a really great spotting scope, and those aren't cheap.