Ruopp 1

Matthew Ruopp
Deby Jizi
UWRT 1102-028
29 April 2016
Research Essay
Recently, I purchased a Colt M4 carbine. This gun is based on the AR-15 rifle and
considered to be one of the most ubiquitous rifle in American gun culture (NSSF). This particular
carbine I bought produced poor groups that were too low and outside of the adjustable range of
the sights. Since I had no recourse to return the rifle, I was determined to find out why the rifle
performed this way. So I did what any curious inquirer would do: I took it apart to investigate the
cause.
When I removed the barrel from the receiver, 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 square. However, I was surprised to see
the amount of excessive clearance between the barrel extension and receiver. I measured this
clearance to be about 0.004, which was enough to allow nearly a quarter-inch of deviation at the
muzzle end of the barrel.
The design of the AR-15 type rifle provides a slip-fit of the barrel into the receiver. This
design is efficient for mass-production, but the only contact area between the barrel and receiver
is a one-inch ring that results about 0.15 square-inches of contact area with the receiver. This
contact is on the axial plane, in-line with the barrels bore. To illustrate why this design may be
undesirable, imagine holding a champagne flute by its base with your fingertips and push the top

Ruopp 2

rim of the vessel. The pressure on your fingertips grasping the base is difficult to control. 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 shim from a 0.003 feeler gauge. The shim was placed
around the barrel extension to take up the clearance and to angle the barrel ever so slightly
upward. Doing the math, that slight angle worked out to be enough to negate my low-shooting
problem. With my crudely modified rifle in-hand, I headed to the range.
With my sights centered within their range of adjustment, I fired five well-aimed shots at
a fresh target at 25-yards. To my surprise, all five rounds landed about an inch to the left of my
aiming point in a tight group that measured under at extreme spread. I fired another fiveround group to confirm the shot placement and group size and was delighted to see a consistent
result. I dialed in six-clicks of right windage adjustment to the rear sight and fired ten well aimed
shots which landed squarely in the center of the one-inch bulls eye.
I was pleased that my calculations were validated by the elevation correction and
increased accuracy. However, what impressed me more was that my groups showed significant
improvement in precision. This raised the question to me about what effect, if any, does the
barrel-to-receiver clearance have on the level of this type of rifles precision?
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,
while other rifles may not hit a target as reliably. 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 (FM 3-22.9). The shooter is most often
blamed for poor marksmanship because human error provides the greatest potential for variation;

Ruopp 3

but for the purpose of this writing, I am going to focus on the rifle. Be warned: this is about to
get geeky.
It is important to understand the difference between the terms precision and
accuracy. Precision refers to the variability of a group of shots placed on a target. I will use the
angular measurement minutes of angle, abbreviated MOA in this writing. One MOA is 1/60th
of one degree; in linear measurement, this is roughly 1 for every 100 yards of distance from the
shooter to the target (FM 3-22.9, 5-37). For perspective, a M4 carbine fails government
inspection if it produces 10-shot groups larger than 5.6-inches at 100-yards, or 5.6-MOA (MILDTL-71186A, 14).
Accuracy, on the other hand, refers to how well placement of a group of shots is centered
on a target (Ballistipedia.com). If the center of a large 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
a very small shot group 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.
The result I observed with my shimmed barrel was my shot groups went from greater
than 3-MOA before disassembly to less than 2-MOA after I had shimmed the barrel. 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 was removing the barrel to receiver
clearance improves internal ballistic performance resulting in less weapon-influenced variability
and tighter shot-groups. Remember the champagne flute analogy?

Ruopp 4

I designed an experiment aimed at comparing the results of shot groups fired from
factory assembled M4 rifles versus M4 rifles assembled with zero clearance between the barrel
and receiver. I would record shot groups from three M4 carbines as factory-assembled, then
modify the carbines to have zero barrel-to-receiver clearance and groups from each modified
rife. I would compare the results using statistical analysis at a 90% confidence interval.
I sourced three similar M4 carbines manufactured by Colt Defense. I disassembled the
carbines and thoroughly cleaned them to remove any copper or carbon fouling. I carefully
measured the outside diameter of each barrel extension with a micrometer. A calibrated pluggauge and feeler gauge stock were used to measure the inside diameter of the receiver. My
measurements were entered into a spreadsheet to calculate the minimum amount of clearance
between the parts. The rifles were reassembled using the factory procedure (standard fitment).
Denver Defense, LLC, just outside of Charlotte, North Carolina, generously provided a
50-yard indoor range with a shooting bench rest to conduct the testing. The climate-controlled
range and bench rest allowed me to control environmental and shooter-induced variables.
Quality, match-grade ammunition from the same manufactured lot was used throughout the
experiment. One group of ten shots were recorded, and the carbines were returned to my
workbench for modification.
When rifles fire, they get hot, resulting in the aluminum receiver expanding more than the
barrel extension. My clearance calculations at ambient temperature are significantly different
when the rifle reaches operating temperature, which for the purpose of this experiment was
assumed to be 200-degrees Fahrenheit. Armed with materials property data referenced from the
ASM volumes (641), I used an engineering calculator developed by MIT to determine a proper

Ruopp 5

amount 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 zero-clearance with no permanent deformation (Machinerys
Handbook, 640).
I made barrel shims from wide steel feeler gauge stock cut to 3.10-inches in length,
then secured radially to each 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 baked the receivers in my oven
at 220F for one hour to expand the aluminum. At this temperature, I could fit the parts with
0.0005 clearance without affecting the temper of the 7075-T6 alloy receiver (ASM, 847). The
aluminum contracts around the steel barrel extension almost instantly. At this point, the parts are
joined solidly until they are returned to the temperature differential at which they were
assembled (modified fitment).
I returned to Denver Defense with the modified carbines and performed the same firing
sequence, using the same equipment, and under the same conditions. The targets were digitized
using OnTarget Target Data System software. OnTarget only gives data relating to the sample of
shots provided. In order to estimate the distribution of the population of shots that a particular
carbine would fire, I imported the data into a statistics calculator called ShotGroups.
According to Bookstaber, ShotGroups analyzes shot group dispersion using a form of
bivariate statistical analysis. The sigma parameter of the estimated mean radius is used to
describe the range of variability at a specified confidence interval of 90%. Sigma is similar to a
population standard deviation in univariate statistics. However, where the empirical rule for

Ruopp 6

normal univariate distribution defines 1, 2 and 3-standard deviations at 68%, 95% and 99.7%,
the sigma analogue in a normal Rayleigh distribution is 39%, 86% and 99%, respectively
(Bookstaber, et al.).
My initial experiment results were inconclusive. The 10-shot sample groups were too
small to provide reliable data, so I repeated the experiment using 25-shot samples. Looking at the
graph of the results, bars closer to zero indicate better precision while shorter bars indicate less
variability in the population estimates. According to Bookstaber, the range of sigma must not
overlap in order for a result to be considered statistically significant. Results in which sigma
overlaps is considered to be inconclusive. This is what was observed in both experiments. My
final conclusion is: when tested at 90% confidence interval, the data do not provide sufficient
evidence that the modified barrel fitment made a statistically significant improvement in rifle
precision. Therefore, we do not reject the null hypothesis that the standard fit barrels perform
as well as the modified fit barrels.
I would like to conduct this experiment with better isolation of variables. Although great
care was taken to eliminate shooter-induced variables in shot placement, I was not completely
confident that the controls were effective; for example, the rifle rest and platform used for testing
could have been more stable; I believe that there was an unacceptable amount of shooter-induced
variation. I believe if there is evidence pointing to the efficacy of this modification, that the
improvement in precision would be relatively small compared to other precision-improving
measures, such as using match-grade ammunition vs. low-quality ammunition.

Ruopp 7

Note the shorter error bars provided by 25-round sample groups.

Range of Sigma EMR @90%CI

Standard Fit

Modified Fit

Rifle A

(0.44, 0.77)

(0.33, 0.58)

Rifle B

(0.62, 1.09)

(0.44, 0.78)

Rifle C

(0.47, 0.83)

(0.60, 1.06)

Rifle A

(0.47, 0.67)

(0.39, 0.55)

Rifle B

(0.46, 0.64)

(0.50, 0.70)

Rifle C

(0.49, 0.68)

(0.52, 0.73)

(1x10-round group sample size)

(5 x 5-round group sample size)

Ruopp 8

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.p. Official
Department of the Army Publications and Forms. Headquarters, Department of the Army,
12 Aug. 2008. Web. 3 Apr. 2016.
"Modern Sporting Rifle Facts". NSSF, n.d. Web. 29 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.