Jul 5 2017

## Bison Armory Scratch and Dent Sale

http://bisonarmory.com/scratch-and-dent/

Super prices on some barrels and upper assemblies that we need clear out.

Jul 5 2017

http://bisonarmory.com/scratch-and-dent/

Super prices on some barrels and upper assemblies that we need clear out.

Jul 4 2017

Bison Armory is happy to announce that we’re finally making 308 Win upper assemblies! We’re using Aero Precision M5 upper receivers that are 100% compatible with DPMS LR-308 lower receivers. Accuracy is outstanding, and you can pair your 16″, 18″, and 20″ .308 Bison Armory Fulcrum barrel with a standard .308 Bolt and carrier or upgrade to JP Enhanced Bolts and LMOS carriers. Forearms from SLR Rifleworks and Aero Precision complete the upper assemblies.

The complete upper shown weighs in at 6.8 pounds. Here’s my last 10 shot group using my personal recreation of FGMM 168 grain loads

You can check out our new upper assemblies here! 18″ upper assemblies are available now, and 16″ and 20″ will be available soon.

Jul 1 2017

In part 1 of this post last week I looked at recoil and report, as well as muzzle velocity when comparing a typical 20″ .243 Win hunting rifle with a 16″ 6.8 SPC AR-15. Both of these rifles are mild recoiling and excellent for youth hunters, or really any hunter who wants an easy to carry rifle for medium game like deer, black bears, cougars, and hogs. The results shown in the last post indicate that the .243 has the edge in recoil and velocity for 95 grain bullets, though the 6.8 SPC will be a little easier on the ears. In keeping the 6.8 SPC to 16″ barrel length, the addition of a silencer, typically adding 5 to 7 inches of length to the weapon, will be easier to carrier and shoulder than the 20″ .243 Win.

We turn our attention to the down range performance of the two rounds. Since the last post, I’ve learned that Barnes isn’t making the 95 grain .243 caliber TSX anymore so I’ve replaced it with the 95 grain Hornady SST, so all the analysis of the previous posts for internal ballistics is the same. The G1 BC of that bullet is .355, while for the 95 grain 6.8mm TTSX the G1 BC is .292 and the 110 Accubond has a G1 BC of .370.

Muzzle velocity (fps) | 300 yard velocity (fps) | 400 yard velocity (fps) | 300 yard drop (inches) | 400 yard drop (inches) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

.243 Win 95gr Hornady SST BC .355 | 2834 | 2108 | 1893 | 12.9 | 30.4 |

6.8 SPC 95gr TTSX BC .292 | 2707 | 1865 | 1627 | 15.8 | 37.7 |

6.8 SPC 110gr Accubond BC .370 | 2531 | 1878 | 1687 | 17.2 | 39.8 |

The table shows that the .243 Win shoots flat. Most youth will keep shots on deer well under 300 yards, but I’ve used 300 as a good benchmark as that’s a shot you want to be able to make. The 6.8 SPC shooting both the 95 and 110 grain bullets is no slouch and both the .243 and 6.8 will be able to hit game at 300 and 400 yards. How do these rounds stack up in terms of energy?

100 yard energy (ft-lb) | 200 yard energy (ft-lb) | 300 yard energy (ft-lb) | 400 yard energy (ft-lb) | |
---|---|---|---|---|

.243 Win 95gr Hornady SST | 1402 | 1152 | 938 | 756 |

6.8 SPC 95gr TTSX | 1221 | 953 | 734 | 558 |

6.8 SPC 110gr Accubond | 1293 | 1060 | 862 | 695 |

6.8 SPC 110gr Accubond 20" barrel 2600 fps | 1368 | 1124 | 916 | 741 |

Again, the .243 Win has the edge over the 6.8 SPC, though the 6.8 hangs in there with the 110 grain Accubond, and either of these calibers will take medium size big game out to 300+ yards. Note that in a 20″ barrel where the 110 Accubond can push to 2600+ fps, the energy of the round has effectively caught up to the .243 Win. The tradeoff then is terminal performance vs overall length of rifle. A 16″ AR-15 is very ergonomic and easy for a hunter, especially a youth hunter, to carry and shoulder in the field. The addition of a silencer to the 16″ weapon isn’t as cumbersome as when added to a 20″ weapon.

However you compare them, the .243 Win and the 6.8 SPC both make excellent choices for mild recoiling hunting rifles for medium sized game. Personal preference for energy down range, flat trajectory, rifle size and weight, report sound level, and those intangible aspects like personal preference for a given caliber, are all valid reasons to choose .243 Win or 6.8 SPC. There are of course many other calibers, like the 6.5 Grendel and .300 Blackout in AR-15 platforms, and .260 Rem, 6.5 Creedmoor, and .25-06, etc. in bolt action platforms, that make for great mild recoiling hunting rifles. One thing is for certain, hunting is a great American tradition and pastime, and there is no lack of choices when it comes to rifle calibers that get the job done.

Jun 23 2017

Updated June 24, 2017

The 6.8 SPC caliber makes for great medium sized game hunting from hogs to deer to black bears and more. The 6.8 has mild recoil, and a lightweight rifle chambered in this caliber is ideal for hunts in which you put a lot of miles on your feet, up and down in hilly terrain. The mild recoil is preferred for anybody, but especially so for young hunters, women hunters, or anyone who wants a lightweight easy shooting rifle. My 18″ 6.8 is what I choose when I’m hunting deer in central and eastern Washington State. I’m not considering the ultra-mild recoiling .223 because it’s not legal for big game hunting in many states, my home state of Washington included.

The standard youth deer rifle appears to be a bolt action .243 Winchester with a 20″ barrel. I’ve never shot one but I’m told it has mild recoil, which I find surprising given that the .243 Win is based on a .308 parent case. My goal with this post is to compare the 6.8 SPC to the .243 Win. I want to compare external ballistics, recoil, and report / sound level – as every good parent wants to protect their child’s hearing as much as possible. Using QuickLoad as the tool for internal ballistics, and Hornady’s external ballistics calculator for down range performance, we can compare performance against several metrics.

**Recoil**

For most of us dad’s out there, we want our kids to have fun hunting and shooting. We start them young, and the last thing we want is a flincher because we started them with too much gun. Turns out the 6.8 SPC and .243 Win are great choices for youth hunters and shooters in terms of recoil. To see why we can compare the recoil force due to the impulse imparted by shooting on the rifle and shooter. The entire process of powder ignition to bullet exit at the muzzle takes about 1 millisecond. The force imparted to the rifle can be estimated from the impulse based on the following formula:

which is the impulse due to a constant or average force, , applied over a timespan starting at and ending at . An impulse is a change in momentum so we can also compute the impulse as

where is the starting velocity and is the end velocity, and m is the mass that we assume does not change for this analysis. From the previous two equations we can make the following equation:

And then we solve for the average force that would result from the given impulse

which, given that and , and letting , the total time from ignition to uncorking, simplifies to

**Report**

The magnitude of the report is primarily due to the sound pressure at the muzzle the moment the bullet exits. The ratio of pressures is captured by this expression (using the reference pressure which is regarded as the smallest sound pressure change the human ear can detect):

This is the sound pressure right at the muzzle, which would instantly destroy anyone’s hearing if their ear was right at the muzzle. At a distance of 1m the sound drops considerably

We’ll take as the distance at the muzzle and 1m at the shooter to avoid taking the log of zero to get numbers that are typical of rifle report measurements.

Now we are armed to compare recoil between the 6.8 SPC and .243 Win, and for added fun we’ll throw in the .223 Rem and .308 Win to see how they both stack up to a high power round. To get a true apples to apples comparison for recoil, we’ll assume 16″ barrels for internal ballistics. When we look at external ballistics, I’ll leave the 6.8 SPC at 16″ and use the more common 20″ barrel for the .243 Win and .308 Win, and an 18″ barrel for the .223. These barrel lengths will also be used for comparing the report from the rifles. Especially great for comparison, the 6.8 SPC and .243 Win have shoot similar weight projectiles. In this case we’ll compare the 6.8mm 95 grain Barnes TTSX against the .243 95 grain Barnes TSX. Using Quickload with similar near max safe pressures we find the following:

Rifle/Bullet | .243 Win 95 gr TSX 20" | 6.8 SPC 95 gr TTSX 16" | 6.8 SPC 110 gr AB 16" | .308 Win 165 gr AB 20" | .223 Rem 75 gr SMK 18" |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Velocity (ft/s) | 2831 | 2707 | 2530 | 2630 | 2700 |

Time to Exit (ms) | 1.08 | 0.802 | 0.877 | 1.165 | 0.88 |

Exit Pressure (psi) | 16076 | 10390 | 9880 | 9809 | 11152 |

F-average (lbf) | 1160 | 1420 | 1406 | 1846 | 937.7 |

Report (dB) | 140.6 | 140.2 | 144.4 | 139.4 | 141.2 |

Note that the values for the report in the table are estimates, but useful for relative comparison. Barrel length is representative of typical youth hunting rifle barrels. As the barrel length increases, so does the muzzle velocity, and the report at the shooter decreases as the exit pressure is lower and the point of exit of the bullet is further from the shooter.

As we all know, the recoil from a .223 Rem is very mild and this data agrees. The .308 has significantly more recoil, and the .243 and 6.8 are relatively mild, with the .243 being almost as tame as the .223. From a recoil point of view, either would do but the .243 is best for typical hunting calibers. Muzzle velocity is also the best for a 20″ .243 Win, though the report is the worst of the bunch. Lesson – wear hearing protection when you hunt.

Speaking of hearing protection, a silencer is best, or electronic ear muffs. The 16″ 6.8 combined with a compact silencer makes a great gun, decreases recoil further, and isn’t so long as to be uncomfortable for an American youth to carry in the field. My oldest son has been hunting deer with a 16″ 6.8 AR-15 with an Ops-Inc silencer since he was 11 years old.

In the next post I’ll compare the external ballistics of the 6.8 SPC and .243 Win.

Jun 7 2017

Took 4 rifles to the range on Friday:

18″ 308 Fulcrum

18″ 223 Fulcrum

18″ 6.8 Recon

22″ 6.8 Heavy

Except for the 223, all shooting was with hand loads. Today’s post relays the results of 20 rounds of 308. The rifle was wearing a Vortex PST, decent but nothing fancy.

**18″ 308 Fulcrum Results**

My version of the 168 SMK FGMM

**Load 1**:

168 SMK over 42 grains of H4895

Federal cases, CCI large rifle primers

OAL 2.80″

MV 2577fps

**Result**: 10 shot group at 100 yards

Sigma = 0.249MOA (0.183 to 0.358 – 95% confidence)

Extreme Spread = 0.82 MOA

P1-0.5 = 91.8% (72 to 99% – 95% confidence)

P1-1.0 = 100% (99 to 100% – 95% confidence)

Pretty good. Indicates high probability that 7/10 shots are expected to be within 0.5MOA of true point of aim, and 10/10 shots should be within 1.0MOA of target. For an auto loader this is great.

**Load 2**:

168 SMK over 43 grains of H4895

Federal cases, CCI large rifle primers

OAL 2.80″

MV 2611fps

Note: First shot was 2″ below the center of the rest of the group. I’m calling this an outlier, but I don’t like it.

**Result**: 9 shot group at 100 yards

Sigma = 0.389MOA (0.281 to 0.547 – 95% confidence)

Extreme Spread = 1.69 MOA

P1-0.5 = 66.9% (35.2 to 86% – 95% confidence)

P1-1.0 = 97.7% (79.5 to 100% – 95% confidence)

Not as good as the last group, and my shooting ability is an uncertain factor. Still, this data indicates high probability that 3.5/10 shots are expected to be within 0.5MOA of true point of aim, and 8/10 shots should be within 1.0MOA of target. So the question is: did my shooting fall apart and produce this less precise group, did the additional 1 grain of gunpowder cause the degradation, some combination of the two, or something else?

For fun we can combine the two groups by overlaying at the “center of mass” of each group

There is clearly a cluster in the middle and then two outliers. I’ll never know the cause but this is interesting. To get more insight, separating the groups by coloring them differently shows the contribution to the blob above from each (ignore the numbers, they’re for a single group):

The 17 rounds clustered in the middle imply something… the rifle is clearly capable of excellent accuracy for an auto-loading weapon. Did those two shots come from bad shooting? Bad loading? Fatigue? Are they truly representative of the weapon itself?

Possible I wasn’t as careful with the second batch of 10 rounds as I was with the first while charging the cases or seating the bullets. Or I was tired as this was later in the day after shooting the other rifles. And what was with that shot that was 2″ low? Clearly, more range time is warranted.

I’ll get to those other rifles in the next post.

May 28 2017

Measured my 22″ heavy 6.8 chamber with a Hornady OAL gauge. Several bullets measured out as follows:

Sierra 115 SMK

- 2.384″ OAL to lands
- 2.352″ for full neck engagement

Berger 130 VLD

- 2.471″ OAL to lands
- 2.381″ for full neck engagement

Nosler 110 Accubond

- 2.407″ OAL to lands
- 2.457″ for full neck engagement

Nosler 130 Ballistic Tip

- 2.563″ OAL to lands
- 2.572″ for full neck engagement

Interesting that the Nosler bullet shapes are such that the bullets seat deeper when into the lands than the maximum length for full case neck engagement. In the end I decided on the Berger 130 VLD for range testing. My loads are from Western Powders and I went with Accurate LT-30. They list the following load data

- COAL: 2.350″
- 23.4 to 26.0 charge weight
- 2158 to 2404 fps

I went with a COAL of 2.38″ and ran loads of 23.9, 25.0, and 25.7 grains. I’m far enough from the lands to expect no significant pressure increase and I have plenty of case space at this loading depth for the given loads. I measured the muzzle velocity at 2300, 2395, and 2475 fps respectively for the three different loads. The 25.7 load charge gave me this 10 shot group at 100 yards:

Not bad at all! I was having some issues with this rifle and factory ammo, and I thought I’d try loading long to see what I could get. The COAL is much longer than mag length, so I had to individually chamber each round. I was shooting a Mega side-charge setup, so I was using it like a single shot, straight-pull, bolt action rifle. Statistics worked as follows:

- Mean radius: 0.404 MOA
- Extreme spread: 1.21 MOA
- Sigma: 0.322 MOA

UPDATE: I inadvertently counted the outlying shot twice. After correcting the statistics look like this:

Definitely very good. On the other hand, the weakness of even a single 10-shot group is apparent in the 95% confidence intervals. Still this rifle with the given hand load is at worst Class 4, and Class 3 is very likely. In this case, the likely P1x for this combination is 0.59 MOA for the estimated Sigma, and at worst about 0.85 MOA. I need to put more rounds down range to get a tighter estimate, but things are looking good.

Solid BACS class 3 rifle with this load. I’m going to load these to PRI magazine length right at 2.30″ and see what I can get next time. Here’s a shot of the rifle from an earlier session, although now it’s wearing a PRS stock and Vortex PST scope:

For next time, I thought of backing off the powder a bit and load to mag length of 2.300″. You can see the difference below between the 2.38″ and 2.30″ rounds:

I’m especially curious what velocity and accuracy I’ll get with the reduced COAL. The loading manual states 26.0 grains of LT-30 at a COAL of 2.35″ and I only went to 25.7 grains at 2.38″. I think given that at 2.26″ they state 25.1 grains is max safe load, that I can keep this load at 25.7 grains at 2.30″.

I’ve also worked up some 2.300″ loads of Benchmark under 115 Sierra Match King bullets. I want to run this load in my Fulcrum and Recon barrels. Here’s the round compared to a factory Remington 115 BTHP:

Range report this coming weekend.

May 9 2017

To start, a list of Jargon, Concepts, Variables, and Acronyms:

- BAC
- MOA and sub MOA
- Rayleigh Distribution
- σ and Mean Radius
- Accuracy Indicators (MR, P1x, ES, etc.)
- Computing P1x from CEPYY

Many rifle and component manufacturers guarantee MOA or even Sub MOA performance from their products. Claims of MOA and sub MOA weapon performance is prolific within the shooting community. Using the Ballistic Accuracy Classification system (BAC™) I will show how the different weapon classes within BAC relate to plausible claims of MOA and sub MOA accuracy.

To begin, we neglect environmental effects, especially wind, precipitation, air temperature, and the rest, and choose to focus on effects of rifle, shooter, and ammunition. Essentially, we’re looking at effects that dominate shooting rifles from the bench at 50 to 100 yards. These effects extend to longer ranges and different shooting positions, but these scenarios must consider environmental effects and shooter skill which are neglected in this discussion.

Weapon accuracy is described by the Rayleigh distribution, which is just a two-dimensional version of the common Normal or Gaussian distribution. It even uses the same parameter (sigma) to characterize the radial dispersion of shots on a target. BAC defines several classes of weapon accuracy based on the single Rayleigh distribution statistical parameter, σ (sigma), which is the Rayleigh analog of the standard deviation for Gaussian distributions. Each of the classes corresponds to a σ that is 1/10 of the designation of the class. In this way, Class 2 has a σ of 0.2, Class 4 has a σ of 0.4, and so on.

For a given weapon system (by which I mean weapon, ammunition, and shooting scenario), once σ is known, and thus the weapon class has been defined, all sorts of interesting information can be readily computed for the weapon. For example, the Mean Radius (MR) of a class is approximately 1.25 times the σ parameter of that class. The MR is probably the most useful and easily understandable value to the shooter that can be computed from σ because it represents the EXPECTED, or most probable, distance of a given shot from the true point of aim.

I introduce the term Accuracy Indicator to refer to some measure of a subset of a sample of a shot group, real or simulated, that conveys useful and/or interesting information about the accuracy of the weapon, ammunition, shooter, and combinations thereof, that were involved in shooting the group. Such measures as 3-shot and 5-shot extreme spread, mean radius, vertical standard deviation, horizontal standard deviation, group center, and Point of Aim error are all accuracy indicators.

One of my favorite **accuracy indicators **is the probability that a single shot will be equal to or closer than some distance from the true point of aim (POA) of the shooter. I will call this indicator the P1x (probability 1 shot less than some x in MOA from true point of aim). The P1x accuracy indicator is practical and interesting for a lot of reasons, including that it is simultaneously its own mean and extreme spread. The P1x is also an inverse of the Circular Error Probable (CEP – i.e. the radius from the true POA for which a given shot is YY% probable, e.g. YY = 90 implies CEP90). While the true point of aim is never known perfectly to the shooter, the statistics reference the P1x indicator from the true POA, and the shooter would like their actual POA to equal the true POA.

CEPYY is computed from σ as

Which is easily inverted to get the P1x result for a given σ, or

Where x is the distance from true POA in question. This can be solved for σ to answer another reasonable question: what σ and x will give me a P1x? For example, suppose we want to know what σ is needed to get a P1-0.5, which is the probability of a single shot landing within 0.5 MOA of the POA, with a probability of 80%. In this case solve for σ to get

With the result that

Which is Class 3.

The reason I like this accuracy indicator so much is that it answers the practical question of whether the success of a proposed shot is probable, and exactly how probable. For example, I think most hunters will be happy if their hunting rifle had a P1-0.5 of at least 50%, meaning that the probability that a single shot will land within 0.5 MOA of the true POA is no worse than 50%. In this scenario, the hunter could reasonably expect to make 300 yard shots as the probability of the shot being within 1.5” of the intended target is 1 out of 2. Further, with a 50% P1-0.5, the P1-1.0 turns out to be much higher, 93.7% in fact, so that in our hunting rifle scenario, the hunter could expect a very good chance of their shot being within 3” of their point of aim at 300 yards (plus a small factor to account for discrepancy between true and intended POA). Such a weapon has a σ of 0.425 which puts it at the high end (lower is better) of Class 4 (Class 4 has σ centered at 0.4 and extends from 0.35 to 0.45). The following figure shows the P1x for x between 0 and 2 MOA for a σ 0.425 weapon.

Most rifle shooters, myself included, are inclined to think of accuracy in terms of 3 or 5 shot extreme spread. I will explore the usefulness of this metric as an accuracy indicator and compare with two other accuracy indicators: MR and P1x.

The figure below shows the probability of a 1 MOA or better 5-shot extreme spread (ES) for BAC classes 1 through 7. Note that the range of probability of 1 MOA or better ES is large for some classes (3, and 4) and small for most of the others (1 and 2 at the high accuracy range where the probability is greater than 90%, and 5-7 at the low accuracy range where the probability is less than 20%).

From the above notes and the graph below, it is my opinion that any BAC class that spans more than a 20% range of probability for a given MOA metric can be assumed to be of that ES class. In this case, BAC Class 3 and Class 4 can be reasonably thought of as MOA weapons. In this case, Class 3 is MOA with greater than 50% probability of 5-shot MOA groups while Class 4 is MOA with less than 50% probability of MOA ES. Classes 1 and 2 are what most of us think of as solidly sub MOA, and weapons at the low end of Class 3 are at the high end of sub MOA performance with a solid probability of 0.8 and 0.9 MOA or better 5-shot groups.

A natural question at this point is why not refine the classes so that classes 3 and 4 are broken up into finer regions on the 1 MOA plot? This is a very good question, and one I struggled with as I would like a more refined system as well. There turns out to be a very good answer: It is very difficult to determine the σ of a given weapon system to a finer degree than we are doing with the BAC system.

There are many reasons why this is true. Foremost, the number of shots required to define a BAC class more precisely than 0.1 MOA per class is very high, somewhere between 100 and 1000. Shooting so many shots starts to effect the accuracy of the rifle as the barrel you are shooting at the start of the session is not exactly the same as the on a the end of the session for a lot of reasons. Second, during a given shooting session, shooter fatigue will set in and start to have an increasingly larger effect on the results. There are other reasons but these are the most significant that immediately come to mind.

Class 5 is worth further consideration. It is not quite an MOA class according to the discussion so far but it is close. What happens if we extend the size of the 5 shot group under consideration from 1 MOA to 1.25 MOA?

So, a Class 5 weapon can reasonably be considered a 1.25 MOA weapon when thinking in terms of extreme spread. How does a Class 5 weapon stack up in terms of P1-0.5 and P1-1.0 accuracy indicators? It turns out that for the center of Class 5 with σ = 0.5, P1-0.5 equals 39% and P1-1.0 is 86%. I consider this very good for hunting and informal target shooting.

On the other hand, I don’t like individual 3-shot groups for determining accuracy as they are statistically meaningless and they give a false sense of accuracy. Consider the probability of each class of weapon shooting a 3-shot extreme spread at 1 MOA or better:

In this case, Class 5 is solidly an MOA performer as up to 30% to 50% of 3-shot groups are expected to be MOA or better. However, 3 shot groups for selecting ammunition that works well for a given rifle, or for zeroing a scope is a grave mistake, and for those and other reasons I reject 3-shot groups for any serious rifle evaluation. I know if feels awesome to have three shots in close proximity on paper, but take the extra courage and risk blowing the group for the greater good of knowing something closer to the truth. In fact, for serious accuracy determination, I shoot a minimum of 10 shots per group, and I usually combine data from three such groups into a single 30 shot result. I love 5 shot groups for fun and friendly competition, but for evaluation 10+ shot groups are vastly superior.

In my next post I will consider an important aspect of rifle shooting accuracy: the shooter. How can we estimate the accuracy of the shooter, and if this quantity is known, how can the accuracy of the rifle and ammunition be separated from the capability of the shooter with that weapon? Especially important to consider: how the precision of the shooter is effected by the weapon. Deficiencies in shooting technique are exaggerated by lighter weight weapons and cartridges with greater recoil, and the ratio between the two. Hold these thoughts until next time.

Apr 24 2017

I’m going to start posting results of range sessions once or twice a month as we get our accuracy analysis up to speed. Right now the plan for a given weapon is 3 10-shot groups, so 30 shots total. Time between shots 30 to 60 seconds, 100 yards, mild conditions (hopefully), and the 3 10-shot groups will be taken with no scope adjustments so that they can be compiled into a single 30-shot group. Time between groups could be 5 to 30 minutes and is not deemed relevant, except that the barrel will have had a chance for substantial cool down.

The following image indicates what I hope to produce for these updates, which will be used to characterize a given barrel and weapon:

That 100 yard 10-shot group is just an example as I’m still working on presentation. The group was shot with one of our 18″ .223 Fulcrum barrels with 77gr Federal Gold Medal Match ammunition. In the future I plan to measure bullet velocity with with my LabRadar unit. The Sigma values above indicate that this rifle and ammo combination is no worse than low Class 5, and probably Class 3. This is as much information as can be gleaned from 10 shots, which is one reason why 3-shot and 5-shot groups are dubious for gleaning weapon accuracy. I took 15 other shots with Hornady 75 grain match ammo and when both groups are centered and combined, just for example to get more shots in the group, I get the following retults:

In this case the Sigma value over a 95% confidence range tighten up from [.221, .433] to [.265, .397]. This indicates the rifle is no worse than Class 4, and could reasonably be Class 3 (especially given that I was the shooter and I’m not particularly good). Class 3 is realistically as good as auto-loading rifles get so this is the target, so to speak, for a competition gun like this one. For grins we can separate the two different groups and overlay to see how the different ammo shot:

I didn’t measure muzzle velocity of any of the shots, but that is planned for future analysis. In the future we can tag any given shot with a muzzle velocity and then analyze the results.

The important takeaway is that it takes a lot of shots to properly characterize weapon accuracy, and that even with a lot of shots, the accuracy potential of the weapon is hard to nail down with a lot of precision. Still, were confident that we can back up our Class 5 guarantee on our products, and that we’ll be able to zero-in on that number a lot better with more data.

Apr 22 2017

Countless times I am asked and have asked the question that arguably troubles rifle shooters more than anything: “How accurate is my rifle?” Most shooters, myself included, have settled on 3 or 5 shot groups, and the expected extreme spread of that group. We like to buy rifles that promise groups that are 1 inch or 1 MOA. We take our shiny new weapons to the range and put the manufacturer’s guarantee to the test.

The after-action report finds us sometimes pleased and sometimes not. We all know a single bad range trip can be due to lack of sleep, too much coffee, a bad batch of ammunition, ammunition the weapon simply doesn’t like, or one of many other excuses. These excuses might be legitimate, but there’s no way to know. Adjustments are made, bullet seating depth is changed, different ammo is selected. The next range trip might produce a couple groups in the MOA to sub MOA range and we are then pleased that our rifle is indeed a shooter and we pack up happy until next time.

Then we get really sophisticated, especially if we are hand loading our ammunition. 50 rounds, in a blue plastic box, the first 5 sets of 5 rounds varying powder charge by a few tenths of a grain, the second varying bullet seating depth. We shoot our 10 groups and look for trends, and we see the groups open up or close down in a manner that appears to vary proportional to the change in the parameter of interest. And who doesn’t love a good looking target after a trip to the range.

I’d seen some interesting measurements of group statistics that got me thinking. Extreme spread was never completely satisfying from a practical point of view, and achieving a small extreme spread had become more like winning a football game than providing meaningful feedback about the outcome of a shooting session. Here’s where things could have gone one of a couple different directions. If I were to keep on keeping on, business as usual, keep chasing MOA and sub-MOA 5-shot groups with extreme spread as the metric, I start to run the risk of fooling myself. Fliers are the shooters equivalent of Mulligans in golf, and we use “called fliers” as a means to tighten up the group size. I find called fliers very unsatisfying and if the group didn’t stay together, it didn’t stay together and that was that. Still, not enough useful information.

Not surprisingly, all these shooting sessions, all this data, and it’s clear there’s more meaningful information. The problem of measuring shooting accuracy clearly has a statistical nature, and concepts like mean and standard deviation, already long in use when thinking about muzzle velocity, must be applicable in some way. The internet knows everything and Bing searches quickly lead to Ballistipedia. Go there and you will find the application of some serious statistical expertise to the problem of thinking about and measuring rifle accuracy. The problem turns out to be a lot more complicated and nuanced than I thought.

Once I got through my five stages of grief, having given up the old and beloved way of thinking about accuracy, serious study of the proper way to analyze the measurements of little holes in paper began. It took me a couple months of part time study, but I finally gained a good understanding of the statistics of measuring rifle accuracy. The problem is complicated and I think the subject is not one that is suitable to most shooters who just want to know the practical accuracy of their weapons so they can be aware of what shots are reasonable for them to take, and what is the probability of a given outcome.

Getting back to the beginning of this post, as a company that sells rifle barrels and components, we want to be able to tell our customers what level of accuracy they can expect from our products. Now we know there is no meaningful answer to the question “Will my rifle shoot MOA groups?” The hope is for a sea-change in the way rifle accuracy enthusiasts think about and discuss their topic. The methods presented at Ballistipedia are correct but not generally accessible, and the practical implications of the results of detailed statistical analysis of shooting data are hard to discern. A system is needed that boils down the results of the statistical analysis of a sample of shooting data into different classes of performance. Once a weapon and ammunition combination has been classified, the shooter can easily assess the likelihood of a particular outcome of a hypothetical scenario. The shooter can know how likely they are to shoot a 5-shot group with MOA or better extreme spread. They can also know the probability of any given shot being within 1/2″ from the true point of aim. They can also know how many shots are needed to get a good estimate of the true point of aim of their weapon so that they can achieve a good zero for their scope.

To this end, Bison Armory has worked with Ballistipedia.com to create the Ballistic Accuracy Classification system.

We are still working to classify our barrels, upper assemblies, and rifles, but to start we guarantee that our products are at least Class 5 as defined in the BAC system. In practical terms, this means a shooter can expect at least 39% of their shots to fall within 1/2″ of the true point of aim, 9% of 5-shot groups to measure 1″ or better extreme spread, and 35% of 3-shot groups will achieve this measure. Our data indicates that our products are probably typically Class 4 but we’ve not gathered enough data yet to make a guarantee i this regard. For Class 4, a shooter can expect 54% of their shots to fall within 1/2″ of the true point of aim, and 26% of 5 shot groups will have a mean radius of 1″ or smaller, and 57% of 3-shot groups will be this small.

Our match grade, heavy barreled, and Fulcrum products should approach or achieve Class 3 status with the right ammunition. Of course, the true classification of a given barrel in practice will depend on the quality of the build, the ammunition used and its suitability to the weapon, the setup and performance of the shooter, the trigger, the total weight of the weapon, the quality of the optics, the tightness of the fit between upper and lower receiver, and other factors.

Once you know the class for your weapon, you can know with confidence important metrics like the probability of hitting a given target at a given range with a single shot.

No other rifle manufacturer we know of goes to these lengths to give a meaningful accuracy guarantee for their products. It takes time, it takes commitment to the truth above marketing, and it takes dedication to rifle shooting as a discipline. Don’t be fooled by phony accuracy guarantees. Demand the truth, embrace the truth, and then every shot will count.

Apr 5 2015

First & Only from BISON ARMORY

Shop for 18″ .223 Wylde FULCRUM Barrels HERE

Shop for 18″ 6.8 SPC FULCRUM Barrels HERE

.308 WIN FULCRUM Barrels HERE!

FULCRUM barrels are the first barrels for the AR platform that deliver the perfect balance of heavy barrel performance and mid-weight utility. In other words, phenomenal accuracy without all the weight, so you can carry longer and shoot better. A lot better.

**SPECS**

FULCRUM barrels are currently available only in 18” lengths and in .223, 6.8 SPC and .308 Win.

FULCRUM barrels have a larger overall diameter than our mid-weight barrels, but a smaller overall diameter than our heavy barrels. FULCRUMs are the only barrels on the market that are .825 diameter from the gas block to the muzzle, so you must use our proprietary FULCRUM gas blocks for now (more on that below).

The 18” .223 FULCRUM barrel (including barrel extension) weighs 40 oz., which is 2 oz. more than our standard 18” SPR .223 barrel and 6 oz. more than our standard 18” RECON .223 barrel (including extensions).

The 18” 6.8 SPC FULCRUM barrel (including barrel extension) weighs 38 oz., which is 2 oz. more than our standard 18” SPR 6.8 SPC barrel and 6 oz. more than our standard 18” RECON 6.8 SPC barrel (including extensions).

All FULCRUM barrels are stress relieved 416R stainless steel and have precision made BAT Machine barrel extensions with M4 feed ramps. They are available now with threaded muzzles, with unthreaded on the way, and in both cases are cut with 11 degree target crowns.

**SCIENCE**

So what do you get for these few extra ounces? A kick ass barrel. Here’s why:

The FULCRUM’s increased diameter produces a barrel that is stiffer than our mid-weight barrels and has more surface area, both as a result of the larger diameter and the fluting. The increase in surface area produces better heat dissipation and a faster rate of cooling. The underlying increase in thermal mass also means FULCRUMs are less sensitive to fluctuations in temperature, which translates to more consistent shooting under all conditions.

The increase in diameter also pushes more mass towards the front of the FULCRUM barrel, which improves the harmonics and increases the overall stability and balance of the shooting platform. The extra mass decreases felt recoil, and its distribution increases the moment of inertia, which reduces angular acceleration for a smooth shot that helps you stay on target.

The preceding are all the reasons why standard heavy barrels shoot so well. The beauty of the FULCRUM is that you get all that performance from a barrel that weighs far less.

**GAS BLOCKS**

All FULCRUM barrels have a .825 diameter gas block journal, which means they will only work with Bison Armory FULCRUM gas blocks. There are no other .825 gas blocks on the market (yet). We didn’t design the barrels this way just to mess with you, we did it because it was the only way to achieve the optimal balance of weight and performance.

FULCRUM standard gas blocks are custom made to our specs by Elite Iron and SLR Rifleworks makes our adjustable blocks. We are very proud to have these outstanding US manufacturers work with us to develop this essential hardware. To learn more about Elite Iron visit their web page HERE and for more information about SLR Rifleworks visit their web page HERE.

UPPER ASSEMBLIES

**Here’s our new Barrel Specification Chart showing how the FULCRUMs fit in**