Ruopp 1

Matthew Ruopp
Deby Jizi
UWRT 1102-028
10 April 2016
Peer Reviewed Research Essay
Over the course of my career as an infantryman, I have fired countless weapons; most of
which have been the M16 rifle and M4 carbine family of service weapons. I first qualified as an
Expert with the M16A2 over twenty years ago at Parris Island, South Carolina. If you are not
familiar with Parris Island, I recommend watching Stanley Kubricks film Full Metal Jacket; it
gives a fair portrayal of the place where Marines become marksmen. In 1997, I attended the
Preliminary Marksmanship Instructor course, where I qualified to train Marines on
marksmanship skills. After transitioning to the Army, I applied my marksmanship expertise to
training soldiers to qualify with the M16 rifle and M4 carbines. All told, I have taught hundreds
of people how to use this weapon system.
In applied marksmanship, there are four main sources of variables: the firearm, the
ammunition, the shooter and environmental factors such as wind, temperature, humidity and
even light intensity. The shooter is most often blamed for poor marksmanship because human
error provides the greatest potential for variation; but for the purpose of this writing, I am going
to focus on the rifle. One characteristic of service rifles that always stood out to me is the high
degree of variability the weapons exhibit - meaning that one rifle may consistently hit its
intended mark, and others may not hit a target reliably. Its fair to say, that on several occasions, I
have barely met qualification standards with a particular rifle despite my typical score being

Ruopp 2

fairly high. You can call it a fluke, a bad day or whatever, but this is an illustration of the power
that random variables can have on an outcome.
Recently, I purchased a Colt M4, model LE6920. This is the civilian, street-legal
version of the Carbine, 5.56mm, M4 used by the United States military. The main differences
being the LE6920 has a slightly longer 16.1-inch barrel and is only capable of semi-automatic
fire. This one particular rifle I bought had less than average precision and poor accuracy. Since I
had no recourse to return the rifle, I became frustrated and determined to find out why the rifle
performed this way. Be warned: this is about to get pretty geeky.
It is important to understand the difference between the terms precision and
accuracy. Precision refers to the variability of a group, or sample, of shots placed on a target.
This can be expressed in linear form inches, millimeters etc. or in angular form. Minutes Of
Angle (MOA ) is the most common angular measurement shooters use to express how close a
group shots hit a target relative to each other. One MOA is 1/60th of one degree. So, there are 360
degrees in a circle, divide each degree by 60, yields 3600 MOA in a circle. A minute of angle, in
linear measurement, is 1.05 for every 100 yards of distance from the shooter to the target. We
round this figure down to one inch at 100-yards, two inches at 200-yards, or one-half inch at 50yards. In my experience, an average M4 carbine, firing standard ball ammunition, will typically
place ten, well-aimed shots, within a three-inch circle from a distance of 100-yards. This
translates to three minutes of angle at extreme spread. My poor Colt was averaging groups that
were greater than that figure. For perspective, the Armys marksmanship training program is
built on 6.3-MOA maximum deviation, and the M4 carbine fails manufacturers inspection if it
groups greater than 5.6MOA (MIL-DTL-71186A, 14) .

Ruopp 3

Accuracy, on the other hand, refers to the placement of a group of shots relative to the
point of aim. If the center of a five-inch shot group coincides with the center of the aiming point,
then the rifle is highly accurate but has poor precision. Conversely, if a rifle places ten rounds in
one-inch circle, but the center of that circle is far from the aiming point, the rifle is not accurate
but has good precision. The rifles sighting system, whether that is a scope or front and rear iron
sights, can be manipulated to correlate the center of impact of a shot group to the intended point
of aim. Unfortunately, in the case of my Colt, the sights exceeded the range of elevation (up and
down, y-axis) adjustability, and my shot groups were still registering about three-inches low at
the 25-yard distance I was using to sight-in the rifle. Something was wrong; I needed to
understand this problem.
After firing over 300 rounds of ammunition through this rifle, I began to see the shot
groups tighten up to more acceptable levels. However, My rounds were still hitting low. I could
have filed-down the front sight post to reduce its height by 0.080 (2mm); this would have given
me the adjustability to bring my groups up into the intended aiming point. This option did not sit
well with me because this amount of deviation exceeded the acceptable design specification. So,
I did what any curious inquirer would do: I took it apart to figure it out.
I disassembled the barrel from the receiver, and what I found created more questions than
answers. I was expecting to find some defect causing the barrel to be angled too far downward.
Using precision measuring tools, I found the parts to be perfectly square. However, I was
surprised to see the amount of play and excessive tolerance between them. Measured, the
clearance was almost 0.004, which was enough to allow nearly a quarter-inch of deviation at the
muzzle end of the barrel, where the bullet departs. Despite this clearance, there is no movement

Ruopp 4

of the barrel when it is assembled. This is surprising considering the only contact between the
barrel and receiver is a one-inch ring that results in about 0.15 square-inches of contact on the
axial plane (in line with the barrels bore).
To illustrate why this design may be undesirable for accuracy and precision, imagine
holding a champagne flute by its base with your fingertips. Push the top rim of the vessel and
feel the pressure on your fingertips grasping the base; it is difficult to resist the movement. Now
grasp the stem of the flute and push on it again: this hold is much more secure.
With this in mind, I made a makeshift shim from a feeler gauge, which is a thin piece of
metal used to measure gaps at precisely 0.003. The shim was placed to take up the space that
would have been clearance and to angle the barrel ever so slightly upward. Doing the math, that
slight angle worked out to be about 11-MOA, which, in theory, should negate my low-shooting
problem. With my crudely modified rifle in-hand, I headed to the range.
I set my sights to their mechanical zero point, meaning they were centered within their
range of adjustment; and with a fresh target positioned at 25-yards, I fired five well-aimed shots.
To my surprise, all five rounds landed on the left edge of the two-inch bulls-eye I used as my
aiming point. Better yet, all five shots landed in a group that could be covered by a quarter. I
fired another string of five rounds, and was delighted to see the shots consistently landed in the
same quarter-sized area. I dialed in six-clicks of right windage adjustment to the rear sight and
readied to fire. Ten carefully fired shots landed squarely in the center of the one-inch bullseye. I
was satisfied that my calculations were validated by the elevation correction and increased
accuracy. However, what impressed me more was that my groups showed a noticeable
improvement in precision; going from greater than 3-MOA at extreme spread to closer to 2-

Ruopp 5

MOA. This raised the question to me about what effect, if any, does the barrel-to receiverclearance have on the level of this type of rifles precision?
Based on the result I observed, I formed a hypothesis that rifles assembled with zero
clearance at the barrel to receiver interface will show a noticeable improvement in precision. My
assumption is that mechanical forces occur from the time the cartridge is ignited until the bullet
leaves the barrel; theses forces are better controlled by eliminating barrel clearance. Remember
the champagne flute analogy?
I designed an experiment with the aim of comparing the results of shot groups fired from
factory assembled M4 rifles, versus M4 rifles assembled with zero clearance between the barrel
and receiver: Record a 10-round group from three M4 carbines as factory assembled. Modify the
carbines to have zero barrel-to-receiver clearance at an operating temperature of 200F. Record
another 10-round group from each modified rife. Compare the results.
I sourced three similar M4 carbines manufactured by Colt Defense. I disassembled the
carbines and carefully measured the outside diameter (O.D.) of each barrel extension.
Measurements were taken with on multiple axes with a metric micrometer at +/- .001 millimeters
(one micron) resolution. From these measurements, I determined minimum and maximum values
of each barrel extensions outside diameter and the amount of taper. A 1.0000(25.4mm)
calibration plug-gauge and feeler gauge stock were used to measure the inside diameter of the
receiver at +0.0005(0.0127mm) resolution. This was precise-enough for my purposes; I
would only be concerned with the minimum I.D. value. My measurements were entered into a
spreadsheet to calculate the minimum amount of clearance between the parts: Min. I.D. - Max
O.D. = minimum clearance.

Ruopp 6

The rifles were thoroughly cleaned to remove any fouling and reassembled using the
factory procedure (unmodified). Denver Defense, LLC, just outside of Charlotte, North Carolina,
generously provided a 50-yard indoor range with a shooting rest to conduct the testing
(remember: 1-MOA at 50-yards is about ). The climate-controlled range and bench rest
allowed me to control environmental and shooter-induced variables. As an additional control,
quality, match-grade ammunition from the same manufactured lot was used throughout the
experiment. Ten-shot sample groups were recorded, and the carbines were returned to my
workbench for modification.
One problem presented with eliminating the barrel clearance deals with dissimilar metals
and heat. The receiver, forged from aluminum alloy, has a thermal expansion coefficient roughly
twice that of the steel barrel extension. When rifles fire, they get hot, resulting in the aluminum
receiver expanding more than the barrel. My clearance calculations at 70F are significantly
different when the rifle reaches an operating temperature of 200F. To calculate my required shim
thickness, I used an engineering calculator developed by MIT. Armed with materials property
data referenced from the ASM volumes, I determined the amount of interference required to
maintain zero clearance between the parts up to 200F. The calculations resulted in an acceptable
interference of 0.0007 to 0.0014. Within this range, the fitted parts would maintain zeroclearance with no permanent deformation. I used my Excel spreadsheet to determine the most
appropriate shim thickness given the minimum existing clearance.
I made my barrel shims from wide steel feeler gauge stock cut to 3.10-inches in
length. My availble shim thickness options were 0.0005, 0.0010 and 0.0015; thus, I had to
select the shim that would result in the barrel O.D. falling within the acceptable interference

Ruopp 7

range. Each shim was secured radially to its barrel extension using LocTite 609 sleeve retaining
compound. The shim effectively added 1.55 square-inches of contact area with the receiver, a
ten-fold increase from the factory fitment. While the retaining compound cured, I placed the
receivers in my oven set to 220F to cause the aluminum to expand. At this is temperature, I
could fit the parts with 0.0005 clearance and avoid affecting the temper of 7075-T6 alloy. It
takes just seconds for the aluminum to contract around the steel; at which point, the parts are
joined solidly until they are returned to the temperature differential they were assembled at.
I returned to Denver Defense with the modified carbines and performed the same firing
sequence, using the same equipment, and under the same conditions. A visual comparison of the
before modification versus after modification looked quite impressive. I digitized the targets
using a software program called OnTarget TDS. OnTarget allow the user to digitally plot each
shot, then calculate statistics based on the sample provided. In my case, ten rounds were fired for
each sample, the parameter n=10. Rifles A and B resulted in improved precision after the
modification was performed, indicated by by a decrease in extreme spread and mean radius.
Rifle C, however, resulted in decreased precision.
OnTarget only gives data relating to the sample of shots provided. In order to estimate the
distribution of the population , or all the shots that a particular carbine would fire, I had to import
the data into a statistics calculator called ShotGroups. ShotGroups calculates population
estimates based on the sample data. In effect, we can predict with certain confidence, how
precisely a weapon will fire all rounds under the same conditions. The population statistics were
not as promising as the sample data suggested. Although, Rifle B showed the most significant
improvement in precision after modification, it only showed improvement at a 65% confidence

Ruopp 8

interval. That means, if we were to be repeat this experiment 100 times, 68 of the experiments
would show improved precision, and the remaining 32 would show decreased precision. Rifle
A also showed improvement at the 55% confidence interval, and Rifle C showed a decrease
in precision.
Given the small sample size used to conduct this experiment, I cannot conclusively state
that the modified carbines had a statistically significant increase in precision. Although I believe
there is potential for increased precision with this modification, I expect the benefit to be far less
significant than other methods of improving precision. Using quality match-grade ammunition
vs. mass-produced ammunition would result in much more significant increase precision. I plan
to repeat this experiment using a larger sample size of at least 20 shots per sample group; the
larger sample size will provide more conclusive evidence that points toward the efficacy of this
modification.

Ruopp 9

Working:
-I think the flow tells a great story of my problem and exploring a solution.
-Information presented to an audience with little working knowledge of the subject
-Correct MLA formatting

Concerns:
-Majority of the paper is content derived from my primary research and what I consider to be
"common knowledge"
-Citations do not necessarily reflect sources - the contributions from primary sources directly
affected the methodology of the experiment, not the content of the writing.
- Too technical for the intended audience?
-MLA not ideal style to present this subject matter

Ruopp 10

Works Cited
ASM Handbook: Volume 1. Materials Park, OH: ASM International, 1990. Print.
ASM Handbook: Volume 2. Materials Park, OH: ASM International, 1990. Print.
Bookstaber, David. "Ballistipedia.com." Message to the author. 03 Apr. 2016. E-mail.
Bookstaber, David. "Initial conclusion." Message to the author. 05 Apr. 2016. E-mail.
Bookstaber, David, Charles McMillan, and Daniel Wollschlaeger. Ballistipedia.com. N.p.,
24 June 2015. Web. 08 Apr. 2016.
FM 3-22.9 RIFLE MARKSMANSHIP, M16-/M4-SERIES WEAPONS." (n.d.): n. pag. Official
Department of the Army Publications and Forms. Headquarters, Department of the Army,
12 Aug. 2008. Web. 3 Apr. 2016.
United States. Dept. of Defense. Dept. of the Army. " MILDTL71186A w/AMENDMENT 4
DETAIL SPECIFICATION CARBINE, 5.56 Millimeter M4A1." ASSIST Quick Search.
Dept. of the Army. 15 June 2015. Web. 08 April 2016.
Oberg, Erik, and Christopher J. McCauley. Machinery's Handbook: A Reference Book for the
Mechanical Engineer, Designer, Manufacturing Engineer, Draftsman, Toolmaker, and
Machinist. New York: Industrial Press, 2012. Print.