File: 1771400761249272.jpg (83.6 KB)

83.6 KB JPG

>>64913576
You can't shoot well, can you?

>>64913576
Mechanically the firearm is capable of a level of accuracy which exceeds your skill.

There, happy?

>>64913576
The point is to focus on your own aiming rather than blaming the gun you stupid smooth brain

>>64913576
it's a nice way of saying you suck at shooting, don't overthink it

>>64913576
>There is no such thing as "the gun being more accurate than you", this is not coherent and people should stop saying it.
Palsy shaking hamds typed this.

File: pepe.jpg (57.9 KB)

57.9 KB JPG

>>64913576
people who are bad at shooting (most people) won't get much out of a slightly more accurate gun. you could give them a literal laser and it would still look like they were using a shotgun. that's what "The gun is more accurate than you" means. that your shit and you should get better at shooting before you chase mechanical accuracy.

File: 1000007194.jpg (36.5 KB)

36.5 KB JPG

>>64913576
all that typing just to tell us you can't shoot. Shame.

In most cases (and I say most cases in large part because the average shooter is a backwards ass fuddfuck or a dumbshit edgar who doesn't know what safety rules are) almost all of the observed deviation from intended POI is shooter induced rather than mechanical, so giving someone a more mechanically accurate firearm will not shrink their groups very meaningfully, even though it technically will always have some effect.

You are right though that this cliche is way overused and a lot of the time it's just a way for retards to cope for shilling shit guns.

>>64913588
That is not coherent.

Someones upset they shoot low left and cant buy his way out of the problem

File: 1264000030083.jpg (8.5 KB)

8.5 KB JPG

>>64913576
>I'm so sick of this stupid catchphrase. It does not make any sense
Post your groups OP.
>Mechanical accuracy will always shrink groups no matter the skill of the shooter or lack thereof
Wrong. There is such a thing as a noise floor. Your accuracy is defined by the WORST of the contributing variables, not the best. If you don't know how to shoot and have 5-10moa accuracy then the difference between a 0.5moa gun, a 1moa gun and a 2moa gun (of same pattern/cartridge) is going to be lost in the noise.

The POINT of the phrase though is that optimizing different variables costs different amounts of money, and most people do not have infinite amounts. So how you spend affects results. If you've got $3000 to spend, and you're not very good, you should get a solid decent basic rifle and spend all the rest of your money on ammo and practicing, not $2800 on gucci gear and then shoot a few mags a fucking year. Hardware has rapidly diminishing returns, you get 80% of the performance for like 20% of the money, but there is an entire humongous industry oriented around trying to get you to buy fancy shit.

So the point of that phrase is to gitgud before you become a buyfag. Not complex.

>>64913668
I'll add that ammo is usually a bigger factor then the gun too. Most modern vaguely quality firearms, even stuff that's pretty cheap, have ok accuracy. But ammo varies a lot. Spending on learning to handload is another area you may get a bigger bang for buck.

At any rate though, make sure you know where you're getting limited before spending. "Preoptimization is the root of all evil" etc. And know it for real, not the gay "oh yeah imma 1moa over 3 shots (those 4 flyers were 'just me' :^))".

>>64913668
>Your accuracy is defined by the WORST of the contributing variables, not the best.
>2+1=2

ok buddy

>>64913864
You didn't post any groups. I doubt you even shoot guns at all at this point let alone shoot precision. Maybe you go to the range and mag dump a gun you "liberated" once in awhile to impress your chimp friends at least? But that doesn't give you any worthwhile opinion about precision shooting or personal finances.

>>64913576
See >>64913588
If this upsets you it's because your childish ego can't stand being told you are not one of the worlds best. It's the same as motorbike riders thinking they will be faster on a 1000cc when they can't get close to the limits of a 600cc.

>>64913576
It's true though.

>>64913908
>If this upsets you it's because your childish ego can't stand being told you are not one of the worlds best.
Or as likely they got suckered into spending $$$$ on some AI rifle and nightforce optic or whatever "el1t3 sn1per operat3r" shit guntoobers are shilling this week and still shooting 4moa at 100yd in still air and trying to cope about how it'd totally be 5moa if they'd just gotten a decent t3x and athlon or arken or whatever and a basic sandbag (wrong).
>It's the same as motorbike riders thinking they will be faster on a 1000cc when they can't get close to the limits of a 600cc.
Yeah this one. Probably this is a thing in every single sport, people who buy fancy "olympic class" sneakers or whatever when they're still running a 12 minute mile.

>>64913576
Of course the phrase makes sense; mechanical accuracy (while important) will never replace proper skill/technique. If a guy is missing a man-sized target at 25 yards with a Glock, giving him a custom 2011 won't help him. If a guy is missing at 60 yards with a Century Arms AK and steel ammo, giving him a BCM AR won't help him either. The more accurate gun will not overcome someone's lack of skill. It's great advice for people who've spent thousands on gear (people who have the best plate carrier, best ceramic plates, best NODs, thermal, a Damascus steel knife, a suppressor for every one of their rifles, etc.) but rarely train and are wondering if they should replace their 9mm M&P with a Staccato.

>>64913576
You don't shoot well enough to see any difference between an over the counter rem 700 with cheap factory ammo and a top shots custom rig with his doped out ammo. 0. That's how much difference the groups from both rifles would be in your hands. From your post I'm guessing that's probably about an inch on centers at 100 yards.

Everyone in this thread is retarded. If you use a more accurate weapon, your groups shrink, full fucking stop.

>>64914139
No, they don't. If you clamped the rifle to the table and used a repeatable mechanical device to pull the trigger then you would get near as matters the most accurate groups out of that rifle, in those weather conditions, using that ammo. It is possible to get worse groups out of the more accurate rifle simply due to ammo choice.
All that aside, you could shoot worse with the more accurate rifle. How your behaviors effect angle of trajectory on shot comes down to a lot of factors including barrel length.
Someone of your skill level will get the same groups out of all rifles for the most part. Because your skill level isn't high enough to get you near the potential accuracy of any rifle. A budget bolt action has more potential accuracy than you can get out of it.
Post your shitty 100 yard groups and the rifle you used to get them. Or pistol at 25. Prove my point.

>>64914156
How could it be physically possible to not get smaller groups with a more accurate weapon all else being equal? Think about what you are saying.

File: sb180txrg.png (175.5 KB)

175.5 KB PNG

>>64914156
>It is possible to get worse groups out of the more accurate rifle simply due to ammo choice.
Yep. Like, there's certainly more then just this but blows my mind when someone is telling me about how totally hyper sniper accurate their gucci rifle setup is and then draws a total blank when I ask them about their velocity std dev and spread for ammo they use. For an example, I tried out a few boxes of S&B 180gr 300wm last week over an hour or so. The overall spread in velocity was 170fps, which at 200yd would be enough for an extra 3/4" or so of just drop difference all by itself (and obviously affects windage too). Significant changes in your velocity are also one of the easy sure signs of changes in your barrel, either that it's stopped speeding up at the beginning of its life or that you're reaching the burn out point at the end. If you're using stuff you're familiar with you can notice that but if you're working something up or seeing how some manufacturer does it's pretty damn helpful to have a chrono. Yet feels like plenty of people spend huge amounts on some custom whatever for the rifle yet refuse to get even old fashioned bunny ears. I don't get it.

>>64914370
nta but
>all else being equal
All else is never equal though. Different guns have different ergos for the user. Expert guns may expect use by an expert who will know how to adjust all the things about them as needed. A given rifle can have a superior best accuracy, but be more picky about ammo and thus an inferior worst case accuracy. A longer barrel is harder to be accurate from, relying more on the user skill, but the extra velocity is certainly helpful at range in reducing the effects of atmosphere.

And that's all direct, but as we've said there's also the indirect effects because most people don't have unlimited budget. The new shooter who spends $1200 on his rifle setup and $2300 on ammo and practice is probably going to end up a better shot then the equivalent other new shooter who spends $3000 on the rifle setup and $500 on ammo/practice. Say the $1200 rifle has a floor around 0.6moa and the $3k can in theory do 0.4, you honestly think you'll be able to look at their first few hundred rounds and tell which is which?

>>64913576
>Mechanical accuracy will always shrink groups no matter the skill of the shooter or lack thereof.
wrong, vidya lied to you

>>64914370
no amount of mechanical accuracy is going to help you hit a target if the gun is pointed in the wrong direction when you pull the trigger

>>64914370
Because you're being pedantic and retarded. If I'm a 20 MOA shooter using a 2MOA gun, the contribution to inaccuracy from the gun is negligible even if it does technically exist.

You should start with the ammo.

>>64913588
>Mechanically the firearm is capable of a level of accuracy which exceeds your skill.
Usually true.

I have a couple piece of shit guns where the group is the size of a grapefruit because they're 100 year old pistols that weren't always maintained.

Most of my guns though exceed my ability.

>>64913576
I'm sympathetic, anon, because I'm also a massive autist and I prefer people to use precise language.

What they mean is, "the gun's contribution to how big your groups are is basically a rounding error because the contribution from your low skill utterly dwarfs it."

For the average person in your place in this sort of discussion, the causes of inaccuracy are something like:

Gun's mechanical accuracy: ~1-4 MOA on a rifle, Maybe up to ~24 MOA on a pistol.
Ammo's inherent accuracy ~1-4 MOA
Shooter's unstable hands, terrible form, and inconsistent trigger pull: ~96 to untold hundreds MOA

So yes, you're technically correct that getting a more inherently accurate gun and match-grade ammo will improve your groups, but only to a degree that nobody will notice and everyone will call you a retarded faggot for trying to draw their attention to. Wow, your average deviation from the bullseye went down .5 of an inch because you spent an extra 2k! It's still shit because you are a lazy nigger who argues online instead of practicing.

>>64913576
>will always shrink groups
Now where are the groups located? The boomer says accurate, not precise :>)

File: IMG_9572.jpg (137.8 KB)

137.8 KB JPG

>>64913576

>>64913646
yes it is

>>64914139
Not if the shooter can't hold a 20MOA group, dumbass

>>64913576
it's more of
>is it a big enough difference to make a difference, you be the judge
also you're assuming the error is always the same direction. maybe the gun is 3 moa off low and you are 5 moa off right or the gun is 3 moa off let and you are 6 moa of right

>>64913864
nta
you are
a. assuming all of the inaccuracy is compounding when it may or may not be
b. if you are a 6 moa shooter, you won't really notice the difference between a 1 or 2 moa gun

>>64917216
>>64917261
This gets more to the real heart of it. Not all sources of error are normal distributions, and part of shooting well is being able to notice and compensate for quirks of the gun. You can't do that if you can't shoot well enough to even realize where the issue is in the first place.

>>64917261
>all of the inaccuracy is compounding when it may or may not be
if the inaccuracy of the gun is the uncertainty where bullets go when everything is strapped to a bench, then it works the same when a human is pointing it
the human might be pointing it in a wrong direction, but the direction becomes even wronger

but let's see what happens. moa is dispersion, so like all standard deviations it combines like root sum square.
>6 moa shooter, 1 moa gun
sqrt(6*6+1*1)=sqrt(37)=6.08
>6 moa shooter, 2 moa gun
sqrt(40)=6.32

so you wouldn't notice much, that's like 5%

>>64918242
>if the inaccuracy of the gun is the uncertainty where bullets go when everything is strapped to a bench, then it works the same when a human is pointing it
Wrong. Strapped to the bench the variables are minimized to that of the gun. Vibration, seating, ammo, bore, chamber, ect.
In the hands of a human the variables are wild. Trigger pull alone can send the first shot to the right, then a slightly different pressure can send one to the left. The variation so slight in back pressure from the grip to the shoulder can send one shot up, one shot down. Breathing pattern difference and heart rate can affect where it goes. Difference in cheek weld position. The list is so long it won't fit here. Body positioning. There is a reason people shoot from a lead sled when zeroing a scope. And even then the trigger manipulation can cause issues.
Unless you dial you in to the point you have achieved somewhat near modern off the shelf bolt action rifle accuracy you will gain nothing nor notice a difference in a more accurate rifle.
Believe it or not most rifles like the mod 70, rem 700 will shoot sub moa, .5 moa off the shelf with factory ammo.
Can you do that? Can you go out and shoot .5 moa every time you shoot from the bench at 100y? I can. But Ive got a lot of experience. If you are shooting 1" on centers with an off the shelf rem 700 you are going to be shooting 1" on centers with a custom bench rifle. An inch is all YOU are capable of. The rifle is not making you shoot like that. A better rifle won't fix it either.

>>64918242
nta but again you're acting like all flaws are perfectly random normal distribution events and that's not the case, nor is it the case that even raw noise is always perfectly additive. it's not a simplistic video game anon

>>64918286
>>64920302
I don't know what point you think I'm trying to make that you're arguing with it. Moving from 1 moa to 2 moa rifle for a bad shooter barely changes total dispersion, regardless of exact distribution assumptions, so even if you assume they're gaussian as I calculated before. Maybe you'd have to think about these things when moas are comparable.

>>64921322
sorry you are right anon read to fast and confused what you were saying with that OP guy. yeah even in 'best case' of fully random it still makes little difference vs other stuff.

>>64916102
This but unironically