Accuracy Claims

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • bcd007

    Marksman
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 21, 2010
    150
    16
    How do you guys feel when a YouTube firearms personality (or any "expert") does an "accuracy test" for a given rifle? I've seen guys like Nutnfancy review a rifle and say "this gun just isn't that accurate". I've always thought the best thing they could say is "with me on the gun, accuracy is better/worse than I expected". We all know that a decent rifle is only as accurate as the guy squeezing the trigger. If you want to test the true accuracy of a rifle, put it in a rest, indoors, and have a trigger fire control device release the round. There are hundreds of things that the shooter does that could make the accuracy worse than they think it should be (like me, my issue is that I sometimes don't follow through on the trigger pull).

    just wondering how the community feels about a personal review of a rifle's accuracy.
     

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,696
    113
    .
    So many factors affect accuracy, I don't think of something as bad or good until I've shot it and maybe adjusted the ammo after some checks.
     

    Dean C.

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Aug 25, 2013
    4,429
    113
    Westfield
    It's a reasonable data point, I do think Nutnfancy does allot of groups from a lead sled which for me gives a good "rough estimate" of what to expect from a given system
     

    LEaSH

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    43   0   0
    Aug 10, 2009
    5,803
    119
    Indianapolis
    So many factors affect accuracy, I don't think of something as bad or good until I've shot it and maybe adjusted the ammo after some checks.

    Right on that. Ammo can change results quite a bit in some rifles. Projectile weights, design, manufacturer, etc.
     

    Cpt Caveman

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    57   0   1
    Feb 5, 2009
    1,757
    38
    Brown County
    Some rifles are more accurate than others. A good shooter can only do so much with a crappy rifle. A mediocre shooter can do decent work with an accurate rifle.
     

    bcd007

    Marksman
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 21, 2010
    150
    16
    It's a reasonable data point, I do think Nutnfancy does allot of groups from a lead sled which for me gives a good "rough estimate" of what to expect from a given system

    I agree, and wasn't picking on Nutnfancy, his was just the last video I checked out. His Ruger Precision Rifle review is what got me thinking about this though. My groups with a .308 RPR were way better than his with the same ammo. That's what got me thinking about environmentals. A squirrelly wind mis-read can send your shot off inches, and wind can be tough to read. So, is it fair to say the rifle is less accurate when it might be the shooter?
     

    oldpink

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 7, 2009
    6,660
    63
    Farmland
    If it's Sootch doing the accuracy evaluation, he probably did the best he could and used a wide variety of ammo to give it his best shot, as it were.
     

    Double T

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   1
    Aug 5, 2011
    5,955
    84
    Huntington
    As far as I can tell, NutNfancy does the best try for accuracy with different ammo at different distances, and calls it like it is.
     

    rob63

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    20   0   0
    May 9, 2013
    4,282
    77
    Another aspect that makes it difficult to assess accuracy is that you can get different results with the same rifle in different situations. I used to own a Galil clone that was pretty crappy off of the bench compared to my AR, but I always shot it better offhand than I could ever achieve with an AR. The weight and balance just seemed to suit me in that situation.
     

    Dean C.

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Aug 25, 2013
    4,429
    113
    Westfield
    I agree, and wasn't picking on Nutnfancy, his was just the last video I checked out. His Ruger Precision Rifle review is what got me thinking about this though. My groups with a .308 RPR were way better than his with the same ammo. That's what got me thinking about environmentals. A squirrelly wind mis-read can send your shot off inches, and wind can be tough to read. So, is it fair to say the rifle is less accurate when it might be the shooter?

    Honestly the results did not surprise me given my past experience with Ruger barrels. I used to have an SR-556 both the chrome lines barrel and non lined barrel variants and on their best days with match ammo the best I could ever get out of either gun was about 2 MOA or so.
     

    snapping turtle

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 5, 2009
    6,463
    113
    Madison county
    I have no issues with any reviewer giving a less than stellar review of an item. So many times the reviewer seems to make the item seem like the best thing since sliced bread every review every item. (Gun magazines seem to be the worst) advertising dollars are often at stake in articles reviewed in printed publications. The internet reviews seem to be a little more honest To me I would rather see a this is not what I expected or this is a rather crappy item more often than the glowing reviews so often turned in. Once I hear the same things said the same way in each review on items I often wonder if it is copied and pasted. To many glowing reviews then I tune out.

    I do like reviews done the same way each time. The unbox. The overall first impression. The breakdown. Trigger pull gauges. The range trip done at say 50 yards rimfire scoped 25 yards open sighted. Same cci mini mags ammo ect. The reviewers have come a long way. All should include the "this rifle is one of xxx and your mileage may vary" statement.

    The only good gun mag negitive review I have seen in years was comparing a new savage 42 22/410 to a 1970's savage 24 22/410. I think it was shooting times magazine and a less than stellar review of the new gun comparison to the writers personal favorite combo rifle. The fact that the hammer strikes on the rimfire 42 were light strikes and he included it in the review along with a colored side note paragraph latter written when the rifle went back to savage and was reshipped and fixed. (Most likely an advertising partner agreement to get the guns) that rundown was stellar. Groups shot same day side by side same winds same shells same shooter. It raised the price of the 24's and the style of combo rifle/shotgun while telling of the flaws in the new version where they cheapened the product to meet price points over the old gun.

    Show me me a single negitive review in a gun mag in the last ten years. Please show me just one.
     

    bcd007

    Marksman
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 21, 2010
    150
    16
    All pretty good answers guys. Thinking about your replies really filters down what I was thinking to "what's most important to you in a gun review?". Knowing accuracy can really depend on the guy behind the trigger, I more want to know things like "How did it function? Were there any jams? Can you find aftermarket parts or holsters? Did you see any mechanical or safety issues?". To me, if someone says "the gun wasn't accurate", I really kinda dismiss that.
     

    mcapo

    aka Bandit
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Mar 19, 2016
    20,560
    149
    East of Hoosier45 - West of T-dogg
    It's the internet - you get what you pay for....although - these accuracy test do give you an idea of what a certain platform MIGHT be capable of given all factors known and unknown.

    The exception is this forum; which is the only site containing 100% accurate anecdotal evidence. Oh, and Hickok45. His videos are great.
     

    LarryC

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 18, 2012
    2,418
    63
    Frankfort
    I rather ignore accuracy reports unless they shoot from a lead sled with various weight ammo and cite the weather conditions. To be honest most every firearm produced today for hunting or general use is more accurate than 99% of the shooters (including me). The only accuracy reports that are valuable would be from a sled or rail and then only to the long range competitive shooter.

    The only value to me is seeing the difference the bullet weights make to the accuracy reported. As most of us know it can take a lot of experimentation to determine the "best" round or reload for a particular firearm.

    Even then accuracy at a certain range is only part of the equation. If you are a hunter in the US almost all rifles are adequate as far as accuracy ~ unless you are hunting sheep or mountain goats in the mountains at long range. Just as important is the BC, expansion etc. as accuracy, in fact a 2 moa rifle (the normal requirement for military rifles through out the world) which is within 4" is perfectly adequate for most large game hunting, deer, elk, etc. up to 200 yards. I doubt any of the new production rifles exceed 2 moa with most ammo and none with selected tested ammo.
     

    GreyState

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jun 22, 2017
    76
    8
    Ft Wayne
    All pretty good answers guys. Thinking about your replies really filters down what I was thinking to "what's most important to you in a gun review?". Knowing accuracy can really depend on the guy behind the trigger, I more want to know things like "How did it function? Were there any jams? Can you find aftermarket parts or holsters? Did you see any mechanical or safety issues?". To me, if someone says "the gun wasn't accurate", I really kinda dismiss that.

    It's this question that got me going on creating my own channel. There seems to be two main camps of reviews...the one that bugs me are the ones that are either pure marketing, or...the super critical. On top of those, there are a bunch that are done quickly and try to push an agenda, or apparently grind an axe. I think there is a balance to be achieved that answer the questions that I always try to answer for myself; which are: Why? (to seek understanding), and how would it benefit me (or others) as shooters - if not now, in the future. I'm about gaining DOPE all the time, and applying it.

    As soon as I get mine rolling, I'll post a link. The challenge is to do it right, it takes a lot of cameras, forethought on how you want to build out the video, and $$$...especially when you are a fledgling and trying to build credibility, you need A LOT of shooting (bullets) footage, with multiple angles to validate your claims to viewers. There really is a lot of overhead.

    I really like seeing the feedback on channels, helps me think about how I'm shaping mine.
     

    natdscott

    User Unknown
    Trainer Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jul 20, 2015
    2,797
    113
    .
    My thoughts about a really precise rifle/ammo match is that it should be able to put a good number of rounds through paper under 3/4 Minute at more than 100 yards. If it will do 2" at 300 yards for 10 rounds, and it's not a dedicated BR rig, then boys, you have the start to a helluva rifle.

    This nonsense of contrived 1/2" 3-shot groups with one called flier at 98 yards is just that. Nonsense.

    I rather ignore accuracy reports unless they shoot from a lead sled with various weight ammo and cite the weather conditions. To be honest most every firearm produced today for hunting or general use is more accurate than 99% of the shooters (including me). The only accuracy reports that are valuable would be from a sled or rail and then only to the long range competitive shooter.

    I do agree with your premise. Many (most?) of the 'review groups' I see are shot under what I consider compromised conditions, and that includes 3-round groups.

    But that stuff about the sled is not really true. It doesn't get along well with several rifle types, very much including AR rifles. I don't know why, and I don't care, because I have no plans of owning one.

    Sling prone or ruck prone, if done carefully, are both adequate methods of testing ammo down to the 1/2 Minute range. I have shot groups prone off of sand bags under 0.200 Minute, so the hold radius is not much issue for 99% of rifles and ammunition.

    Seeing as even "just AR" comp rifles are probably between 1/4 and 1/2 Minute rifles, and some are turning in 5-7 rounds groups around 1/2 Minute (and some shooters a good deal less) from sling prone, I disagree with the lead sled thing.


    "If you can't sight in a rifle without a bench, you are not much of a shooter." -- Can't remember which famous shooter, but not my words.

    -Nate
     
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom