Okay just wanting to ask...

[spacemanspiff]

When discussing the merits of one gun over another, accuracy is always brought up.

Now honestly, I don't recall hearing much about inaccurate guns, when it comes to firearms such as semi-autos, pistols or rifles. And unless we are talking about guns that are used in competitions, where the consumer demands 1/4 moa, I think most guns used in practical applications are going to get 2 moa or less.

So lets hear from those who have had guns that are worse than 2moa.

When trying to make a decision of Glock vs Springfield vs Colt vs S&W vs Sig vs whatever, I think that accuracy is going to be pretty much the same across the board as far as pistols is concerned.

For rifles, thats another matter, but tell us as well, what problems you have had with poor accuracy. Factory ammo? Did handloads help at all?

And for both pistols and rifles, did you have a gunsmith work on it to try and improve the accuracy? What results?

 

[Shane Tuttle]

When trying to make a decision of Glock vs Springfield vs Colt vs S&W vs Sig vs whatever, I think that accuracy is going to be pretty much the same across the board as far as pistols is concerned.

I agree with that. I'm only concerned about "combat" accuracy in a duty gun. I know this can even be subjective on definition. If it provides center of mass shots on a consistent basis I'm happy. Self proclaimed clover leaf shots at 25 yards with basic sights is only good enough IMO is overkill more less unlikely unless a rest was used.

For rifles, thats another matter, but tell us as well, what problems you have had with poor accuracy. Factory ammo? Did handloads help at all?

I have a boring response. Some bullet weights/lengths didn't provide favorable results for me. Reloading helped immensely for me. This is after I fireformed the case and found the right powder/primer/bullet combo along with COAL.

And for both pistols and rifles, did you have a gunsmith work on it to try and improve the accuracy? What results?

Most of my guns have had trigger work. Getting rid of creep and lowering the lbs. helped me out. I can only roughly give an estimated tighter groups by 1/2 the normal spread.

I know this is a very basic response. I hope it helps anyway.

 

[Webleymkv]

When I look at accuracy, I look at practical accuracy or how accurate I can shoot it. For example, Glocks have a reputation for being accurate but I can't hit the broad side of a barn with one. This doesn't mean the gun isn't inherently accurate, just that it's not accurate in my hands because the grip angle isn't right for me. This is why I'm to typically interested in groups fired from a ransom rest as almost all pistols and rifles are inherently more accurate than I'm capable of appreciating.

 

[Tom2]

I have owned revolvers that were just average accuracy, and a few that were very accurate. Shooting at the range with the very accurate ones is pretty much more fun, as it is nice to see a little cluster of holes in the bullseye when you are done. IF you have a gun that shoots acceptable "combat" accuracy, it is sometimes disappointing to know that whatever you do, the thing will not make small groups, takes away the fun to some extent but does not mean the gun is not practical for SD or something. But I guess if the gun shoots better groups, it is more fun and you practice with it more. So that helps I guess. Same with rifles. You can shoot an AK of the cheap variety all day long and it will always work and be reliable probably, but shooting some old surplus rifle and making small little 1 MOA groups or close to it, is more satisfying to just about everyone. One famous gunwriter once said "only accurate guns are interesting" in his opinion. I bet I would shoot my SKS more if it shot small groups versus practical combat groups. You see your target and decide that well it works OK, put it away, and go on to something more accurate for fun!

 

[44 AMP]

Accuracy is a combination of factors

The individual gun, the specific ammo used, how well the gun shoots that ammo, the shooter , and even environmental conditions.

General questions asking if gun A is more accurate than gun B do not come close to addressing all the potential variables, and so are basically worthless.

Any individual gun/ammo and shooter combination can be more "accurate" than another one. Rifle or pistol, the most one can factually say is that one class of firearm tends to be more accurate than another, with good ammo, and this only applies to certain general situations (for example one can say that bolt action rifles tend to be more accurate than lever action rifles) BUT individual guns of any class may be more accurate than individual guns of another class (for example, Winchester pump model xxx ser#xyz may outshoot Remington bolt action model Z ser# abc).

And questions about which caliber is more accurate are the same thing, basically worthless, as the individual gun/ammo/shooter combination determines the accuracy more than the chambering of the firearm.

One can make broad general statements, but you must understand that any individual gun you look at can be the exception to that statement.

 

[Keltyke]

For me, functional accuracy consists of three things:
1. The gun
2. The ammo
3. The shooter

The gun must be tight and the sights aligned properly. It must fit my hand and point naturally. It must be comfortable to grip and shoot.

The ammo must be consistent. Range reloads from, let's say, Atlanta Arms are not as accurate as, my PD Corbon.

I must practice with my gun until I know what I can do with it at any reasonable range. I must shoot it as naturally as breathing - without a thought.

 

[Sigma 40 Blaster]

I think people confuse accuracy of the gun with their ability to align the sights and keep them aligned throughout the trigger pull.

Glocks are no more accurate than a Sigma...but the triggers are a lot easier to pull without disturbing your sight picture. My 686 has a light crisp SA pull...I have shot near perfect doubles with it at 3 and 7 yards...but from DA is another story. I guess the accuracy of the gun sucks unless you cock it???

 

[Ricky]

I have had a few that were not accurate enough

I once bought a S&W 9mm from a friend. At 25 yards it was all over the target. I tried to like the gun but couldn't. With my other revolvers and my Glock 22 I can easily shoot 8" groups or better at that range. In my opinion I couldn't trust my life on that gun.
I have a Ruger light weight rifle in .308. The barrel used to heat up so bad that if you fired 4 rounds in 5 minutes the shots would be 3-4 inches apart, going up and to the right. I guess in a practicle sense it would be OK as a hunting rifle since 90% of the time 1 shot is all that is needed but it was no fun to take to the range. After fussing around with it I finally sent it in to be Cryo-Tempered. Wow what a difference! while still not a tack driver I usually get 1-1/2" groups @ 100 yards.
I have a Ruger Ranch Rifle (Mini 14 with scope) that shoots 6" groups @ 100 yards. I wish it were more accurate but I know that it's a duty gun and I guess it's good enough for what it's made for. Damn I wish I could get it down to 2 inch groups though!
It's just nice to know that if I do my part well then the gun isn't limiting the possibilities.
Ricky

 

[Bogie]

Heh... A few years back, a bud and I went to the range... He hung a target out at 75 yards, and commenced to try to sight in an SKS with a scope... I hung a target out at 75 yards, and shot about a 6" group out of a .357 (and it was a lot more than five shots).

His was bigger. A LOT bigger.

 

[Double J]

Have often found two identical guns often one serial number apart, that would group different or have a preference for different weight bullets. Just too many variables exist.
I try to buy good equiptment, and their accuracy I have to have depends on what that particular weapon will be used for. If it don't suit me, It don't stay.

 

[Tom2]

Yea the shooter is a variable, that is improved with practice. The ammo is a variable too, but I will guarantee a match grade rifle with good average ammo will probably outshoot an SKS with match grade ammo, if there is such a thing for that. People pay alot extra for accuracy and they get it or get their money back. A gun that is guaranteed 1 MOA with proper or a particular ammo that shoots 2 MOA will be sent back to the maker, I suspect. And guns can have problems that preclude good accuracy with any ammo. So you can buy accuracy and achieve it unless you are totally a twiching twerp that shakes alot and shoots with his eyes closed. And some guns just don't measure up.

 

[BillCA]

I'm with 44AMP here. There are a number of things that can make any single specimen an accurate or inaccurate gun. It takes time and repeated testing to determine if a particular model of firearms is inherently inaccurate.

The Ruger Mini-14 comes to mind. Early reports showed mediocre, but acceptable, accuracy. That was because testers fired it like a bench rifle at first. But let that barrel get hot from some fun plinking first and the POI wandered around like a drunken sailor.

For pistols, the HK VP-70 showed promise in every area except being able to shoot the gun accurately. This was mostly due to the horrid trigger - one specimen broke at 21 pounds! There was no way to accurately shoot this pistol, even if your forearms looked like Schwarzenegger's.

Using the wrong ammo can result in poor accuracy. The most common one is using the wrong weight bullet in a rifle, such a using a 72g heavy bullet in an AR-15 with a slow 1:14 twist rate.

Often times here we'll see someone complaining their new S&W shoots high or low at a specific distance. Typically it's a new shooter using WWB 110g .357 Magnums at 10 yards shooting high. Factory sight regulation calls for using 158g ammo at 25 yards. But the clue here is that the shots should group together if the user does his part.

Manufacturing defects slipping past QA can really get a new gun owner steamed. A coworker bought a Remington 7mm mag rifle but when he cleaned it, the bore was so rough it would snag the patch off the cleaning rod. Inspection showed some serious "chatter marks" from the tooling along most of the length of the bore. We figured it was a barrel made on a Friday at 4:59pm and someone hurried the job. Remington replaced it with one in which the barrel was bored off-center. With his refund money, he bought a 7mm HK and never looked back.

Testing with a Ransom rest will tell us how inherently accurate a firearm can be without a human in the loop. And most of us are pleased that modern guns are more accurate than we are capable of using.

Each shooter brings along his/her own habits, good or bad, and the results can vary. With some guns you have a little leeway with your technique. Others are much less forgiving.

Lastly, there are expectations. One shooter told me he'd spent $1100 on a Colt Python that wasn't shooting accurately. At 25 yards from a bench rest he was "only" able to shoot a 1-1/4" group, yet he faulted the gun. I told him that I'd take that 5-shot group any day of the week and post it as good shooting. He wanted a single ragged hole.