ACC. vs MOA.

[ukaries]

WARNING: Gun Geek Question

I'm looking for comparability between the two.

I.e.
1-1.5 MOA = ACC 6
MOA 4 = ACC 2

ect...

Anybody have any details or info?

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by ukaries

WARNING: Gun Geek Question

I'm looking for comparability between the two.

I.e.
1-1.5 MOA = ACC 6
MOA 4 = ACC 2

ect...

Anybody have any details or info?

The last time I played with this it was something like a fourth power relationship, but that was 3e. Acc 2 is pistol stuff, usually guns with groups of four or five inches at 25 yards, not 100yds. So Acc 2 is probably closer to 20MoA. Modern pistols with bench-rest groups of 2-4 inches (about 8-16 MoA...call it 12) are Acc 3. The standard military rifle for the US, the M16, is Acc 5 and usually has out of box accuracy of 1-1.5MoA, and Acc 6 is dedicated sniper stuff with sub MoA nail driving capability...call it MoA 0.5.

Slap that into Excel and doing a power law curve fit:

Acc = 5.17 x MoA ^ -0.275

[ed_209a]

Since total accuracy is a combination of the weapon's MOA and the shooter's MOA, couldn't accuracy also reflect how easy or awkward the weapon is to shoot?

Frex, a 1.5 MOA rifle that you can just flop down behind and be in perfect sight alignment might give better real world groups than a .5 MOA rifle that you have to fidget behind just the right way to get it aligned.

[ukaries]

I believe that is modeled by weapon bond and familularity. If not the AK's ACC would be 2 or maybe less because of ergonomic's and semi-auto pistols would be 5 or 6 becuse pretty much anyone can "point and click".

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by ed_209a

Since total accuracy is a combination of the weapon's MOA and the shooter's MOA, couldn't accuracy also reflect how easy or awkward the weapon is to shoot?

Frex, a 1.5 MOA rifle that you can just flop down behind and be in perfect sight alignment might give better real world groups than a .5 MOA rifle that you have to fidget behind just the right way to get it aligned.

I was trying to work up an excel program that took the MoA of the rifle, calculated an effective MoA for the shooter, and Root-Sum-Squared them together to get the overall shot spread of each fired bullet. I treated Acc as the bench rest accuracy of the weapon, and skill as the ability for the shooter to put the ideal trajectory of the bullet where it was supposed to be.

It was a neat effort, and partially successful. Would have been a fun Visual Basic implementation or something.

Anyway your point about MoA not just being the clamped-in accuracy is a good one, although it might perversely be as an "interface" penalty (probably not more than -1) to skill. the barrel/bullet combo itself is 0.5MoA, but when you put it on your shoulder, your skill degrades by some amount.

[Kromm]

The ability to convey the shooter's precision to the shot plays as significant a role as mechanical precision in Acc. Considering only the mechanics won't work out very well for you when the game system slaps on ±1 for after-market add-ons like target grips, for using/not using a folding stock, and so on. Various "interface" issues can easily account for a two- or even three-point Acc difference on weapons with identical barrels, actions, iron sights, etc. This effect can often exceed the weapon's inherent contribution, which might only be 1-2 to begin with. A supremely pointable but mechanically cruddy weapon and a clunky but super-precise weapon can end up with the same Acc because Acc really rates how well you can strike fairly broad targets -- like the human torso -- after a mere second of squinting at them.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Kromm

The ability to convey the shooter's precision to the shot plays as significant a role as mechanical precision in Acc. Considering only the mechanics won't work out very well for you when the game system slaps on ±1 for after-market add-ons like target grips, for using/not using a folding stock, and so on. Various "interface" issues can easily account for a two- or even three-point Acc difference on weapons with identical barrels, actions, iron sights, etc. This effect can often exceed the weapon's inherent contribution, which might only be 1-2 to begin with. A supremely pointable but mechanically cruddy weapon and a clunky but super-precise weapon can end up with the same Acc because Acc really rates how well you can strike fairly broad targets -- like the human torso -- after a mere second of squinting at them.

Do these aids count as increasing Acc or skill, then? Sounds like most of them increase Acc. The things that add to total hit probability but only when you take a second I guess increase Acc; anything that operates all the time would be skill.

[Figleaf23]

WTF is MOA?

[Anthony]

In general, MOA should play absolutely no role in Acc, except at extreme ranges; instead, it limits your absolute skill, because no matter how good you are with a gun, and no matter how fine your sights, you can't reliably hit a target that's smaller than your group size with the weapon. This skill limit is on the order of 26 - 6 * log10(MOA), and will thus be rarely encountered by normal characters, though it's easy to hit if you build the Sniper Of Doom character.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

WTF is MOA?

It's a measurement of the dispersion of gunshots at range. MoA stands for Minutes of Angle, and happens to be roughly a one inch circle at 100yds. So a 10 MoA weapon will put its bullets into a 10" circle at 100yds, or a three foot circle at 360yds.