Should 1-MOA Still Be the Standard?

  • Caleb Tillery

Featured Image Courtesy of Arthurrh

It has often been said that a one-MOA rifle is the high standard for a precision rifle. You’ll see it in blog posts, YouTube reviews, and the like as a box that if a rifle can check, that rifle’s worth a snag.

With the advancements in technology and manufacturing techniques, I believe it is now the minimum standard for a precision rifle. 

But hey, I’m just a SDI faculty member and competitive long-range shooter, so what do I know?

Well, I know this: over the past decade, precision rifle technology has made huge leaps. Rifles would be limited by variables that were not easily measured or corrected.

For example, it used to be difficult to obtain accurate or consistent muzzle velocity. This would, as you might imagine, cause a significant variation in the group size regardless how well the rifle was put together.

Now these variables can be measured easily and with readily available tools. Understanding the supporting components of the rifle will drastically improve the rifle’s performance. This can take the previous one MOA standard and can reduce the groups to ¾ MOA.

So, why are we using old standards on awesome new tech?

What do you think? Is one-MOA enough to get the job done, or do we need to be more demanding? Share this out on social, tag us on it, and let us know!

Spread the love