Competitive Shooting

How Accurate Is Too Accurate?

how accurate is too accurate - setup

In doing research for a .308 LEO Sniper Rifle review I was writing recently, I ran across an article written for a police magazine regarding desired tolerances for a S.W.A.T. “Sniper Rifle”.

I was completely shocked to read the author suggesting that anything more accurate than an out-of-the-box Remington 700 was overkill. Not his exact words, but certainly his point.

It got me thinking, though. Is there a point where you can be too accurate? Let’s discuss.

Defining Accuracy

First, in my most recent purchase and test of an “out of the box” Remington 700, I was lucky to get two-inch groups at 100 yards.

Note, I am not talking about groups averaging 2 MOA. I had exactly one factory choice that provided sub-2 MOA accuracy in its best group.

As a comparison, I was able to get ½-to-1 MOA groups with the same boxes of ammunition out of a non-factory rifle.

I must state, the article I read was written in 2008 and my factory rifle was produced in 2019. Quality control may have gone down in the meantime or I got a poor example.

I can only assume that 2-4 MOA was not what the author was discussing. He did, however, categorically deny the need to run guns capable of consistent ½-MOA groups.

how accurate is too accurate - group size
An example of what the author in the police magazine seems to think is an acceptable group.

Accurate Doesn’t Have to Mean Expensive

That also shocked me. Why would you not want a very precise rifle, especially when every bullet fired has at least one lawyer attached to it?

Notice, I am not stating that agencies need to spend $7,000 on a Barrett MRAD if they ever plan on fielding a sniper rifle.

There are tons of choices that come in well below the $7,000 mark that will get the job done. My factory-to-budget precision rifle article shows a way to build a rifle for under $2,000 that shoots ½ MOA.

Simply change the Shilen barrel from a .270 Winchester to a .308 Winchester (or whatever caliber the agency desires) and follow the article.

Precision Rifle Build
An accurate precision rifle can be built on a budget.

Advanced Weapon Technologies has a .308 LEO Sniper Rifle. The author shot just over 1/3 MOA with four different ammunition choices and very close to 1 MOA with nine options.

That rifle (minus the scope) runs $2,495 and has an LEO discount available as well.

It just seems to me that the extra money spent on a quality rifle is cheap insurance. The cost of the officer’s salary is likely in excess of $50,000.

The cost of his ammunition for practicing is likely at least $1,500 per year. The radio on his hip? Likely exceeds $3,000. The cost of a missed shot hitting grandma? Potentially measured in millions.

Accuracy vs. Penetration

In that same article, the author was very concerned about over-penetration and was very keen to discuss using 110-grain Hornady Tap bullets to reduce over-penetration issues.

He did realize the 110-grain is a poor window/windshield penetrator and suggested the Black Hills 180-grain Nosler Accubond for such uses.

how accurate is too accurate - black hills
Black Hills Match Barnes 168-grain TSX tight group

He doesn’t seem to realize that a .308 rifle may not stabilize both a 110-grain and a 180-grain bullet. A rifle with a 1:12 twist will have difficulties stabilizing a 180-grain projectile.

If the barrel is 1:10, either should work fine, although the 110-grain will be overspun by a bit. That causes its own issue, but rarely within the 100 yards common for police engagements.

That author also did not consider the point of aim vs. point of impact is going to have a HUGE difference for a 110-grain vs. a 180-grain projectile.

I do not happen to have any 110-grain options to test, but I do know from a recent test of 150-, 168- and 180-grain options that they are not close. (See below.)

how accurate is too accurate - SIG 168
SIG Elite 168-grain. Also a good example of a typical group size from SIG, Federal and Black Hills.

The rifle was zeroed with 150-grain and had a 2-3” point of impact shift at 100 yards when 168-grain bullets were used.

After a re-zero for the 168s, the 180-grain bullets were less than an inch off. Some quick math using a ballistic calculator indicates the shift should be at least the observed three-inch move.

how accurate is too accurate - FGM
Federal Gold Metal Match 168-grain Sierra Matchking tight group.

Conclusion

I know what happens when you assume, but I think I am correct that a 3-5″ point of impact shift is NOT going to be acceptable for an LEO Sniper.

I know it isn’t for me at the square range or from the deer stand. I certainly hope it would not be acceptable for the agency fielding the shooter.

How accurate is too accurate? Is there such a thing? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (37)

  1. 50 plus years as a shootist. Young target shooting, Vietnam, bear hunting, Accuracy is utmost! In a stress situation (sniper) imagine heart rate, breathing normal, mental attitude. Try to control all these and shoot your best shot. Oh by the way, did you clean your rifle barrel since you fired it last? Does it shoot that first shot differently in a clean bore? 700 Rem out of the box (you are kidding) (YOU ARE KIDDING ME)

  2. Your job as sharpshooter or sniper is to protect your crew and innocent civilians by stopping the threat IMMEDIATELY! That means in most cases, you’ll only get one shot on a hot target, so make it count. It should be precise and instantly lethal. Whatever you need to do in that role to get the most accurate tool to accomplish this is vital. Spend whatever it takes on the most accurate SHOOTER, WEAPON, GLASS, AMMO, and TRAINING!!!

  3. It’s a 2008 article! Must be really old magazines in your doctor’s office…Seriously, I’m betting that the author didn’t mean to say a rifle should not be too accurate, But instead Said it just needs to be good enough. Personally, I’d rather have my team member carrying a rifle that is “good enough” and have hom, or her, have spent the extra few hundreds or thousands of bucks on practice so that the shooter is good enough to take the shot.

  4. I enjoyed the article ..it is obvious a lot went it to writing it..BUT I will disagree there is no need to spend $2500 or more to get a rifle that puts consistent bullets in a quarter size group, a Remington out of the boxes should do this with no problem especially with hand loads where you can pick your bullet powder and seating depth.I learned to shoot from Vietnam vet units ( not regular ones )where simple works and fast. A RIFLE FOR ABOUT $600 and a simple leupold scope for about $300 along with basic shooting knowledge and a very experienced rifle trainer will work very well

  5. I was a competition shooter long time ago and it shocks me when someone says 1 inch group at 100 yards. My accuracy was HALF of an inch at 50 yards with a small caliber rifle at any time WITHOUT a scope and using free hand with a belt – no stands. If I had to win something I needed 0.25 group at 50 yards.

    A long range 308 target shooting in still air should produce a group within 4″ at 1000 yards.
    But that’s not going to be with a Remington. Even considering that is weird.

  6. I remember a precision rifle course instructor (SWAT Sniper) telling the class that his agency bought the Remington 700 for the Action and it’s aftermarket support, his personal rifle was a Savage which he bought for it’s out of the box Accuracy. Basically he bought the best budget rifle with the best barrel for his money. He had his work rifle and it was no where near stock, loved his McMillan stock. It was an interesting class and we shot out to 1K.

  7. I would have liked to read the article mentioned, just to see what the original author was thinking. However, I have a really close friend that runs the local swat team and they take advantage of the military lending programs constantly. We are a very small town, yet our swat team has its own MRAP armored personnel carrier, every officer in the department carries an M4 select fire machinegun in their trunk. So when you say they can’t afford a Barrett MRAD, think again, they can merely borrow one. BTW, the reasoning behind all the firepower is always the same, “we have to keep up with the bad guys”. To which I reply, which bad guys???

  8. I am retired FBI. My remington 700, “tactical” model, out of the box, consistently shoots a 1″ group at 100 yds. Just one ragged hole.

  9. We can’t be too accurate, but if we mean “can we waste a gigantic pile of money building a slightly better rifle that will yield absolutely no practical advantage in real life situations, tactical or otherwise”, then most probably.

    For practical purposes, what is necessary bare minimum accuracy? I’ve heard 2 MOA suggested for Designated Marksman Rifles, which are basically just battle rifles that meet an accuracy requirement. The US military’s 4 MOA requirement for non accurized weapons can be seen by some as very, if almost too, forgiving. Both make some sense, in terms of what targets are being fired upon at the ranges and conditions expected, however, the DMR might be making 7.62 NATO shots at upwards of, say, 800 meters, where 2 MOA with a competent shooter, whose job is making slow accurate shots, can theoretically keep hits within a ~16 inch range to hit a man sized target. Grunts with assault rifles, without special training, with 5.56 NATO, can theoretically make their man sized target hits at 400 meters as they keep their shot dispersion at ~16 inches there.

    So, what is the sniper rifle? The military sniper perhaps, making torso shots to what practical ranges? In the field of war, you are less likely to face situations like police will face, hostages and crowded civilian areas are certainly not as likely. Certainly, difficult shots can come up, limited view of a target, target attitude and position might make a shot difficult. But not “grandma being held hostage by Johnny Bankrobber”. However, the military sniper does want very high accuracy to increase his overmatch, range, capability, military snipers can value long range shooting to a degree police snipers almost certainly never do. Current mantras seem to be focusing on longer and longer sniper ranges for military purposes, if this is practice or not is not the case, and to hit a man sized target at longer and longer range, accuracy is nicer and nicer to have. If a military sniper wants to shoot 1 MOA at 1,000 yards all the time he wants a rifle that is sub MOA at 100. But, to what extent?

    Will a 0.3 MOA gun really do that much better than a 0.4 MOA or a 0.5 MOA, or even a 0.8 MOA rifle, when we start putting “rubber to road” and bullets down range to 1,000 yards or meters plus? With most sniper shots at 1,000 yards or less because of many factors, what SHOULD we declare a sniper rifle to be? A rifle shooting 1.5 MOA at 1,000 yards is still making a dispersion of less than 16 inches, so in all paper theory “Should” be able to hit man sized targets? Does putting thousands more dollars into a sniper rifle to get the dispersion group to tighten a tiny bit make it a better practical rifle?

    Is the acceptance of auto loading sniper rifles really about the fact that they are super accurate, or is it the fact that there is a realization that they are “accurate enough” for practical ranges where the auto loading speed increase is of greater value than enhanced accuracy? What does this say about improvements to accuracy and real life military performance gains? Is a 1 MOA auto loading sniper rifle that much worse than a 0.4 MOA bolt action rifle for knocking down enemies at 800 yards in combat conditions, support fire missions?

    Police is a different matter. Because police snipers are usually in difficult situations in peacetime. Because they are the ones to deal with the whole hostage scenario bit, because peacetime urban areas have lots of people running around doing normal things. They need precision to make critical shots in dangerous situations where innocents are at high risk of a miss. But, to counter that, most police sniper shots are relatively close range. Go look up the statistics yourself, especially in a modern urban society, police snipers are usually making shots very close range. A police sniper NEEDS to train to hit 600, 800 yards, but if we are being really honest, this is probably not going to be the case, and even 400 yards is considered very unlikely. 200 yard maximums are even a realistic bet. This means that even if the shots are very critical and precision necessary, the vast majority of police sniper work doens’t have to worry too much about range being an extreme factor.

    Johnny Bankrobber has a grandmother held up against him with his knife to hear throat. How much open area on Johnny is there? How big is his head, our killzone, and what is the size of the range? Are we making the shot from a nearby building at 50 yards? 100? 200 yards because of sparse open area? How much accuracy do we need to save someone’s grandmother?

    Even a 1.5 MOA rifle can keep a 3 inch group at 200 yards if shot perfectly. Of course, THEN we have to add in user error and the imperfect thing called man. What is the accuracy we truly see as bare minimum? That rifle/ammunition combination we say is the very least we’d take the shot with? How much does the man throw the shot? Are we more worried about the shooting position the sniper has to use rather than his choice of high end rifle barrel? How much does a more accurate rifle help a man whose having hormones cruising through his veins in this high stakes situation?

    I spent my big boi bucks on a Springfield M21 for an auto loading sniper rifle. For the same amount of money I could have bought, and still think about, a much more accurate bolt action rifle. But then I think, “just what kind of accuracy am I even looking for?”. My M21 is capable of 3/4 MOA. I’ve never shot 10 or 20 round groups, even angry and fast paced, worse then 2 MOA. If I had a custom bolt action 308 with the same big money I spent on my M14 derivative, and shot 0.38 MOA I would have spent to have a much more accurate rifle. I can always second guess my purchase, or just save my pennies to buy another rifle. But, wait, is my current rifle accurate enough?

    If I was called up to help the local police in such a situation in some hypothetical like the author lists, and I had to shoot Johnny Bankrobber holding ol granny, would that 0.38 MOA bolt rifle REALLY save the day compared to my M21? Would your 1/2 MOA bolt action rifle really be that outclassed by a 0.3 MOA bolt action rifle in that scenario? Since real life is not competition where a tenth of an inch might help you win, does it really pay to put thousands more into a gun to squeeze tiny amounts of accuracy at certain ranges for certain purposes?

    There is no such thing as too accurate. If you enjoy building and shooting super accurate rifles, that is an art and I hope you continue to do so, and the industry keeps getting better by building better barrels and rifles. But if you think that it will make you a better practical shooter, you are opening a big can of worms, or better yet a big box of questions and theories, we could discuss all week.

  10. A few years ago I read an article written by a competent person that said if an out of the box rifle would shoot a 1 1/2″ group at 100 yards that was about all one could hope for. I used to shoot a lot and have been lucky to shoot some really good rifles, not as good as are out there for purchase today, but pretty dang good pieces. Less than 1″ groups at 100 yards. Most of the time that was done with factory ammunition. A few 30-06, 308, 25-06, and 22-250’s. I own a Winchester 22-250 made in 1974 that will shoot way better than me. It likes Speer 70 gr. bullets over 748 Ball powder. I do not by any means think of myself as anything but an average shooter but have been lucky enough to do a fair amount of shooting and hunting. Have never missed anything I shot at within 2-300 yards.

  11. If, from a machine rest, a rifle can give 1/2 to 1/4 MOA with factory MATCH loads then you have an accurate rifle that will give the shooter a slight “margin of error” for their human mistakes and for variable weather conditions,

    It is the “margin of error” that helps ANY good shooter remain within reasonable levels of accuracy.
    So, no, a rifle cannot be “too accurate” just as a shooter cannot be too accurate. And shooters are getting more accurate with better rifles, scopes, ballistic engines/weather meters and rangefinders AND better shooter training including the use of these aids.

  12. I’d very much like to read the original referenced article. It sounds like it was written by a Fudd to me. I do appreciate the response regarding the cost of that last 0.1 MOA, and it’s an excellent point. However, it’s not unreasonable for a LEO Agency to expect a 0.5 MOA standard for it’s snipers. We all know that the gun doesn’t make the shooter, but you also can’t race the Daytona 500 in a Datsun.

  13. More accuracy is “overkill”? Well, I hope whoever said that never has a job as a sniper. What if a real sniper encounters a scenario with a drugged out lunatic, holding a hostage with a gun to their head? He’s out of his mind and, he knows there’s no way out. He’s twitchy and likely to kill the hostage and, go down in a “blaze of glory”. The sniper has one chance to save the hostage. The sniper has to separate the brain from the spinal cord at the brain stem for a “no reflex” kill shot. First, the sniper needs to know enough anatomy to know where the aiming point is. Next, the sniper needs to be able to make the shot. If the sniper only has a rifle capable of 2 MOA, the hostage dies. If the sniper has a rifle capable of 1 MOA, he better be closer than 100 yards. Just one inch can mean the difference between a live hostage and a dead one. No, absolutely no amount of accuracy is “overkill”.

  14. Over the last 60 years I have fired and tested only God knows how many factory Rifles.
    All would shoot 2MOA or less only a few would be under 3/4 MOA unless you did some accurizing.
    After that, Reloading did more for accuracy in most but not all Rifles. The correct powder type and charge weight helped but bullet seating depth is also a big factor.
    IMO You Can’t get a rifle that is to accurate! One Hole Groups just give a shooter the confidence needed to make a perfect shot at any reasonable distance up to 600 yards Plus.

  15. Too much accuracy is an oxymoron. Just for example any .22 riflw I own must shoot >1/2″ @ 50yds or down the road it goes. For centerfire rifles (hunting-I am not LEO) I keep only slightly less stringent standard – 3/4″ groups or better are required, but at 100yds. What THAT SWAT Officer or any police dept requires was not clearly addressed. I think a clear goal is always needed.

  16. The author of the article had some good points. One , police departments have tight budgets, so the cost of the rifle has to be within reason to the amount of need. Two the majority of police snipers rarely shoot farther than 100 yards. The ones I have known have never had to do that. So stock accuracy for most bolt actions are quite adequate. Then , you don’t change the rounds weight willy nilly. They practice with the rifle , find out what ammo works within the needed use of the rifle and stick with it. Next they practice often to make sure of their ability and the condition of the rifle. So , it is perfectly reasonable to find a stock rifle at a reasonable cost to fit the need of a police sniper.

  17. I just bought a new Remington 700 to shoot 300 Win Mag to replace my older Winchester 300 Win Mag. I haven’t zeroed in my new weapon yet but I have found over the years if you take good care of your weapon the next best thing is your technique. I was on the Army small bore shooting team a long time ago and learned any rifle can work if there are no major problems with the weapon. I have always worked to make sure my weapons are zeroed in to what I want. I zero in at 200 meters from the standing , prone and squatting. When I was in Vietnam our CO set up a course to show us how ineffective firing full auto was at hitting your target except for scaring the hell out of the enemy and if we took our time to learn how to take a quick shot from the shoulder was very effective at killing the enemy before he killed you. It worked and we took less serious wounds. Our KIA’s went down.

  18. Mr. Bibby,
    You have a few correct points in your article. The one you started off with that is agreed upon is that quality has gone downhill since the original article was written about a stock rem 700 out of the box. Then is there such a thing as to much accuracy? Well as you stated there’s a lawyer behind every round fired but there’s more behind that round than that. See this article is not about a going out to the field to hunt game it’s about the most dangerous game man. Behind every round accuracy is essential because how many lives hinge on that round being placed exactly where intended. Let’s see you have S.W.A.T so hostage(s) lives are involved, fellow officers lives are at stake, and then you have the family members behind each who are standing behind each lawyer behind each round. So you ask “How accurate is to accurate and is there such a thing?” When it comes to LEO’s or military there is no such thing. When it comes to hunting in the bush, fields behind your house yes there’s overkill but yet you still need great accuracy to alleviate suffering and lost tracking of game.

  19. I think the real questions are: (1) what is the target, (2) what is the range, and (3) what are the conditions. A chain is a strong as its weakest link. How important is 1 MOA accuracy? Let’s take a military marksman shooting at a human target at 600 yards in an open field. 1 MOA at 600 yards means 6″ off target. Missing the center mass by 6″ would be borderline missing the target. What are the odds to make a 1 MOA error (regardless of rifle, ammunition, and shooter stability)? For a 24″ 7.62x51mm rifle shooting 168 grain match grade bullet with a 10mph wind at 9 o’clock, miscalculating the range by 50 yards would yield a 2.4 MOA drop error and 0.6 MOA windage error. Miscalculating the wind by the target by 1MPH would yield 0.5 MOA error. Heck, the coriolis effect alone if your shooting W/E would create more than a 0.5 MOA error. Those errors add up. I haven’t yet considered the errors due to ammunition quality, shooter accuracy, etc. So, if you have a rifle with better than 1MOA accuracy, is it really that important to get it down to zero (if that was possible) if you are still prone to make the other mistakes?

  20. “Why would you not want a very precise rifle, especially when every bullet fired has at least one lawyer attached to it?”

    Do the lawyers also get engraved by the rifling? Is it a bad thing if they do?

  21. Back in the day we had to shoot 3” targets at 300 yards to qualify as a sniper. That was with a carefully set up rifle but otherwise un-modified 30-06. Engagements were typically less than 100 yards. It seems to me a 700 out of the box is sufficient. It seems the choice to use a lighter load when appropriate makes sense too. A careful set up and bit of practice will address the important but routine problems mentioned in this article.

  22. There is no such thing as a rifle being too accurate. Over the years I have owned many different rifles in many different calibers. If I could not find a factory load that would shoot 1 MOA or less I would try hand loading. If the rifle simply did not shoot 1 MOA or less then it went on the auction block. I was in the Army for 30 years, shot competitively to include Camp Perry and was a rifle and pistol instructor for 25 of those 30 years. I would like to emphasize that unless the rifle will put the bullet within 1 inch of where I aimed it, it is not worth having. As Lones Wigger once said, “Only Hits Count.”

  23. My 1983 out-of-the-box $450 Mauser Viscount X in .25-06 prints groups of 3 inside 1 inch at 250 yards. I watched a competitive shooter with a $3000 Remington 700 .308 put 24 of 25 rounds through the same point at 200 yards. While there are good rifles at various prices, I think it is less about the particular rifle than the discipline of the owner to learn the weapon and consistently train to use it effectively.

  24. What I did not see mentioned was the distance – other than 100 yds. The arguments may have merit at 100 yards – and if all shots are at that range then OK. What about the 200, 300, or further shots? That’s when the sub-MOA becomes much more critical.

  25. First of all, with 2 out of the box Remington 700’s in the family (both 30-06) I am not sure why you can’t get less than 1 MOA @ 100 yards. My sons have no problem with less than 1 MOA and they only shoot twice a month – maybe 5-6 rounds each time through those firearms (they shoot more regularly, but not those specific firearms). To further add to that, they are also shooting with only a front forearm rest and no butt rest from a bench sitting position and keep it around the 1 MOA but less than 2 MOA. To be fair, one caveat is I do not use factory ammo and I take the time to fit a cartridge combination to the specific rifle…

    Now to the cost of accuracy… I have bolt rifles ranging in price from the $350 Savage Axis II XP range up to a $1,200 Browning Hells Canyon. I have found that there is not much difference in the actual accuracy of the guns, but there is a huge difference in the feel, action and look. I have fired custom made competition firearms and frankly, out to about 200 yards, I can keep up with them using my “out of the box” (with the exception of having a custom stock made for it) Winchester Model 70.

  26. So where does the money go to improve accuracy and what is done to the rifle that improves it? For a fraction of that couldn’t the factory spend a few more bucks and produce a high accuracy model?

  27. As a former service member, qualified on ALL sniper rifles in use at the time of retirement,(2001), I would have to say, IMO, there is no such thing as “too accurate”. That is either for hunting game, or LEO use. Ask those that have made 800yd plus shots, in weather or jungle conditions. No such animal as too accurate

  28. Most police sniper situations are done at 75yds or less. That’s one contributing factor to his article. The other is lack of real experience IMO.

  29. Hey Grumpy, I’m a combat vet with a couple bronze stars (V), and a Republican. My wife is a Dem, she she shoots a bolt action Savage 110 .300 WinMag, and I’ll put $100 on the fact that she can outshoot you at 300 yards.

  30. I will not comment on rifles, but for deer hunting with 44 magnums, I reloaded for six different people (including myself). Each gun was bench tested for two weeks with varying loads, changing bullet weights, powder type and weight, cases and primers. And in the end, every firearm liked a different combination the best. I can see no real reason why rifles would be any different.

  31. This doesn’t surprise me at all. I’ve been an LEO or Marine (not in that order) for almost 30 years. Police command officers are some of the most ignorant people regarding firearms and good firearms skills I have ever come across, including SWAT officers who have had no training whatsoever outside of SWAT school, which is often developed totally in house. These people can be insular and totally opposed to any input or training other than their inbred policies. When I first went through the police academy from the Marines, I’d have sworn the tactics instructor developed his training from comic books. We now have some good Academy instructors that get to every school they can, but we’ve had some real characters over the years. ALWAYS be ready to challenge anything put out by a police officer, as their training spans the gamut from Barney Fife to John Wick (or at least his victims). I can tell some stories…

  32. Obviously, the more accurate, the better. But I will say that I won’t go out of my way to buy a rifle that hits 1/2” MOA for $7,000 when I can buy one stock out of the box that hits 1” MOA for $1,000-$1,500, or build one to hit 1/2”-3/4” MOA for $2,000. I actually enjoy building them anyway.

  33. Somewhere in the vicinity of 30 years ago, I bought a Remington 721 in .270. According to Remington, the gun was made in 1952. (I was born in 1950.) I love that rifle and I have taken more deer than I can count (some at distances of greater than 400 yards with a 4-12 scope) with that rifle. In the Army(1971), we shot targets at 300 meters (328 yards) using iron sights. I scored Expert, so a 4-12 scope makes those kind of long range shots to be routine.
    I also used that gun to kill an elk cow with a head shot. I felt comfortable taking that elk shot because a number of years before, using a very good rest and taking my time, that rifle printed a group at 100 yards that had three rounds covered by a dime (with a small part of one hole showing.) That group measured 5/8 inch at the widest point.
    I paid $200 for that gun back then and have not felt the need to buy another long range deer rifle as I would be hard pressed to find a more accurate firearm without spending thousands of dollars, and even then, it might not surpass the rifle I have.
    I don’t believe that there is any such thing as a rifle that shoots too well or too accurate. Every time I sight in on a deer, I am grateful for how accurate that gun is…

  34. I haven’t read the article the author mentioned eschewing the fact there can be too much accuracy, nor have I ever heard anyone say anything that would be constructed to mean that. After reflection, I thought maybe that article may have been questioning the need after considering the cost to attain higher accuracy. It seems like it may be like speed in an automobile. For a certain price, you can drive 150 miles an hour. But if you want to drive 200 miles an hour the cost goes up exponentially. That last 50mph cost is more than the first 150mph. That last tenth MOA cost much more than the first MOA… maybe.

  35. How many people remember when DEMOCRATs wanted to ban bolt action rifles because they were too accurate??? Bolt action rifles were considered to be “Sniper Rifles”, intended to kill people, because nobody need a rifle that can shoot better that 2MOA to go hunting.

Leave a Reply to wade wingfield Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit exceeded. Please click the reload button and complete the captcha once again.

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.