I'm not one to question SOCOM but here goes...

[BoomerVF14]

...when I read their RFI for a 300BLK PDW here:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity ... e&_cview=0

...specifically, this sentence:

Accuracy shall be 3.0 MOA (T), 2.0 MOA (O) @100 yds. and 5.0 MOA (T), 3.0 MOA (O) @ 300 yds. both in 300 BLK supersonic.

...I got to wondering what SOCOM might mean by "accuracy."

Bryan Litz tells me accuracy is driven by the shooter and the zero:



...while PRECISION is delivered in large part by the weapon system:



So if I wish to maintain full faith and credit in the competency of my government, what do I make of this?

If I assume SOCOM meant PRECISION instead of accuracy, I have to wonder how the weapon adjusts its precision downward when told the target is farther away?

If SOCOM really meant ACCURACY, how can a vendor be held accountable for the operator's skill in zeroing and windreading?

What am I missing here?

[MMA10mm]

I think what your missing is that Brian Litz is setting his (not disagreeing with, just saying, they are HIS) definitions of those terms one way, and the military is setting them another.

I think a better criticism of the military's terminology is that rather than saying "MOA" they should have said "inches." MOA theoretically is a fixed (mechanical) cone of dispersion, so if my guess is right, what the military wants is a 3" group (2" is better) at 100yds and 5" (3" is better) at 300yds.

And, yes, if you're meeting the minimum at 300, you're probably exceeding the objective at 100...

[bangbangping]

So if I wish to maintain full faith and credit in the competency of my government....

[rebel]

Boomer, you are making a mistake I made ( and still make) for a long time. Applying what you have learned about shooting with what the average shooter or soldier/marine in today's army can be taught.
They are taught to kill, suppress a target, move forward and own a battle. Benchrest or sniper methodology need not apply here. You can hit your target without a precision weapon, look at Chicago, they do it every day there.
Brian is an engineer and a really smart guy, what he teaches and preaches might apply to the Sniper cadre of the military, but the door busters need exactly what is described. More than likely using short suppressed barrels at room distances, where the cartridge has a niche.

Not that it won't do other things really well, but the military thinks differently than we do. If it has a spot in these guys kits, just be happy it's being accepted in any sort of way. Never served, but understand the mindset and what the military accepts as a standard.

You know what I like to do and how I like to shoot because we are members of this forum, but trust me, if I was clearing my house of intruders I'd just need to be minute of torso at 100 yards. Besides, I get to use Lehighs

[Dr.Phil]

What am I missing here?

You must not have ever worked for the government...
The language used in .gov communications is its own thing all together.
I once made the mistake of asking my Wife to proof read a report I was drafting.
She tore it apart and could not understand why it was written the way it was.

Bottom line, an RFI on FEDBIZOPS are usually super rough.
They are intended to open the door to future dialog with vendors on a project they are interested in pursuing.

As far as the accuracy / precision requirements go, I don't feel that they are out of line.
Totally reasonable and with the acceptance of ammunition that isn't purely considered "Ball", I think we will see even more development in the 300 BLK projectile.
(Hopefully is won't result in a product like the M855A1 / M80A1 EPR, that is overly complex.)


Lets focus on the positive...
In the last 30 days, there have been some significant signs of 300 BLK reaching a milestone.
1. Several of the "Usual Suspects" like H&K have released 300 BLK specific weapons systems for MIL / LE use.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017 ... -blackout/
2. The FBI is procuring 300 BLK ammunition from Black Hills.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017 ... mmunition/
3. US SOCOM is soliciting for 300 BLK platforms.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017 ... rsion-kit/

[emmagee1917]

I don't understand what (T) and (O) stand for .
The correct goals are :
100 yards 3.0 MOA ( about 3 inches )(T) and 2.0 MOA ( about 2 inches )(O) .
300 yards 5.0 MOA ( about 15 inches )(T) and 3.0 MOA ( about 9 inches )(O) .

Chris

[MMA10mm]

I don't understand what (T) and (O) stand for .
The correct goals are :
100 yards 3.0 MOA ( about 3 inches )(T) and 2.0 MOA ( about 2 inches )(O) .
300 yards 5.0 MOA ( about 15 inches )(T) and 3.0 MOA ( about 9 inches )(O) .

Chris

Chris,
T stands for a word I can't remember, but it means the minimum acceptable.

O stands for "objective" which is what they really would like.

[GSO]

I don't understand what (T) and (O) stand for .
The correct goals are :
100 yards 3.0 MOA ( about 3 inches )(T) and 2.0 MOA ( about 2 inches )(O) .
300 yards 5.0 MOA ( about 15 inches )(T) and 3.0 MOA ( about 9 inches )(O) .

Chris

Threshold (T) - minimum acceptable to declare success
Objective (O) - desired but not required (intent it to achieve this eventually...increment 2/mod 2 if not achievable right away)

Nearly all military requirements documents has some of the Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) or Measures of Performance (MOP) with threshold and objective measures, particularly when pursuing solutions that are somewhat beyond the current state of the art.

[MMA10mm]

Thanks GSO! Threshold! That's it!