Money buys accuracy?


PDA






Rembrandt
March 6, 2010, 09:21 AM
Every week seems there are 3-4 threads that have a common theme....

"I want an accurate rifle......but can't spend any money", make a recommendation.

When someone suggests a gun that's more costly than the average, posters invariably respond that their $300 Blah Blah shoots just as well as those overpriced priced rifles.

The frustration with these posts is that my definition of accuracy and those asking the question are apples and oranges.....clarity of what the poster expects the rifle to do would be helpful.

How do you politely educate someone that their $200 plinker is NOT in the same class as a higher end more costly rifle?

If you enjoyed reading about "Money buys accuracy?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jimmyraythomason
March 6, 2010, 09:22 AM
How do you politely educate someone that their $200 plinker is NOT in the same class as a higher end more costly rifle? Maybe not in the same class but CAN be just as accurate.

KevinR
March 6, 2010, 09:29 AM
I agree with you that money tends to enhance accuracy. However I have seen just the opposite. I have seen $2000 rifles that do not shoot as good as my Rem 700 SPS Tactical. I have also seen $400 savages that shoot just as good as my Rem. But if all things are equal I tend to lean the direction of the money.

LeonCarr
March 6, 2010, 09:32 AM
Most factory scoped bolt action rifles, with some minor bedding/trigger tuning, will shoot under 1 MOA and approach 1/2 MOA. I asked a benchrest shooting buddy of mine what the difference was between a 3/4 MOA rifle and a 1/2 MOA rifle. He said, "About 2500 bucks".

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

dakotasin
March 6, 2010, 09:35 AM
to answer the question, you can't unless or until someone shoots the difference reliably and consistently for themselves.

jpwilly
March 6, 2010, 10:11 AM
I asked a bench rest shooting buddy of mine what the difference was between a 3/4 MOA rifle and a 1/2 MOA rifle. He said, "About 2500 bucks".

I find that to be quite true. 1MOA is available today for $400 bucks+ depending on the mfg and the type of rifle your purchasing. I've spent less and gotten 1MOA so maybe price doesn't matter as much anyway but to have a rifle that will shoot .5MOA consistently does take more $$$ and the best ammo you can buy or build and you have to be consistent as a shooter.

I have a few rifles that will shoot better than 1MOA and just a touch better consistently.

1. Savage 10 308 with hand loads and even Federal ammo plinking ammo.

2. DPMS AR-15 shooting Hand loads and American Eagle bulk packs...rifle does have a 20" Bull Barrel and match trigger.

3. Mossberg ATR 30-06 - (surprise) Factory Federal Power Shok hunting ammo shoots under 1" consistently but I've only shot 3 shot groups - after all it's a hunting rifle not a target rifle.

545days
March 6, 2010, 10:21 AM
Money buys precision. The shooter provides accuracy through sighting in, aiming, and good marksmanship.

Example 1: 1/4 minute of angle groups hiting 2 feet left and 3 feet down from point of aim is very precise, but not very accurate. They are missing the point of aim by 3.6 feet.

Example 2: 4 minute of angle groups centered on the point of aim are more accurate than example 1, but are 16 times less precise.

Horsemany
March 6, 2010, 10:36 AM
Money buys precision. The shooter provides accuracy through sighting in, aiming, and good marksmanship.

Example 1: 1/4 minute of angle groups hiting 2 feet left and 3 feet down from point of aim is very precise, but not very accurate. They are missing the point of aim by 3.6 feet.

Example 2: 4 minute of angle groups centered on the point of aim are more accurate than example 1, but are 16 times less precise.
Today 11:11 AM

I think for the sake of the thread we can assume the OP was referring to precision and accuracy interchageably. We can all agree the majority of the time when people refer to accurate rifles they are truly meaning...precision.

jimmyraythomason
March 6, 2010, 10:41 AM
The frustration with these posts is that my definition of accuracy and those asking the question are apples and oranges.....clarity of what the poster expects the rifle to do would be helpful.
Horsemany,I think it was proper in light of the OP's statement to make that distinction.

Uncle Mike
March 6, 2010, 10:42 AM
Hehehehe.... half the people want something for nothing and the other half doesn't know what an accurate rifle is. :eek:

Guys that really 'need' an accurate rifle, the ones who have invested great amounts of time and money into learning to drive that fancy rifle to its maximum potential, rarely bish about the cost of a $2500 rig. ;)

The complainers....the guy who does the local weekend 'sniper' match but hasn't shot his rig once since the last match he attended two years ago, the same guy who shows up to the deer camp in his Hummer setting on 26" rims and insists everyone fondle his $2500 deer blaster... same guy who gets his butt handed to him by the kid with the Mossberg ATR at that local match...these are the complainers! But they will pay it, gotta give off that special persona, right!?! :banghead:

The working guy, the guy who takes that run of the mill Mossberg, Savage, Remington Tikka, whatever... invests in only the best on-sale economy ammunition, takes the time to know his rifle, learn how to get it done with his rifle...this is the guy who leaves last form camp stinking like old spice and Marlboro's and returns to camp first with the biggest deer...this guy, he doesn't complain about the cost of a $2500 rifle, he doesn't care, he doesn't need or really want one, and he knows it! :p

So, after 30 years of building and selling expensive rifles, you see a pattern in the type of guy who complains about the price of a....a $2500 rifle.

Can you see the pattern? :cool:

JohnBT
March 6, 2010, 11:37 AM
"Blah Blah shoots just as well as"

In my experience, one or so out of every thousand, or ten thousand, of a less expensive model might shoot as well as the average $2000+ model. But 98% of that expensive production run is going to be good, and a fair percentage are going to be exceptional. So sure, I'm never surprised to see the odd cheap gun turn up shooting really small groups. Accidents happen and the important parts really fit together well.

You just have to keep trying out guns until you find the ones you want to keep. Never sell a gun that shoots straight (thinking that you can pick up another one just like it later.) I watched my uncle do this back in the '50s and '60s, mostly with .22 rifles, but he liked his .222 and .30-06, and .444 Marlin, too. I never can remember if he traded 7 used rifles for 11 or 11 for 7 and I can't remember to ask him.

John

P.S. - I don't think there's anything wrong with an accurate gun being pretty either. A Cooper .22 LR.

http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj80/JohnBT3/Coopercustomclassic57M.jpg?t=1267893213


Edited to add: Jeez, I just looked and a Model 57 .22 LR Cooper Custom Classic now lists for $2495. I guess it's been 5 or 10 years since I paid $1600 for that one for my father.

Onward Allusion
March 6, 2010, 11:41 AM
80% (or a dang good portion) of a rifle's (or pistol for that matter) accuracy is the person doing the shooting.

Onward Allusion
March 6, 2010, 11:43 AM
Amen!

Uncle Mike (http://www.thehighroad.org/member.php?u=80868)
<SNIP>
The working guy, the guy who takes that run of the mill Mossberg, Savage, Remington Tikka, whatever... invests in only the best on-sale economy ammunition, takes the time to know his rifle, learn how to get it done with his rifle...this is the guy who leaves last form camp stinking like old spice and Marlboro's and returns to camp first with the biggest deer...this guy, he doesn't complain about the cost of a $2500 rifle, he doesn't care, he doesn't need or really want one, and he knows it! :p<SNIP>

jpwilly
March 6, 2010, 11:46 AM
80% (or a dang good portion) of a rifle's (or pistol for that matter) accuracy is the person doing the shooting.

That's true but I cheat and shoot from the bench rest / sandbags quite often to see how my hand loads and rifles will shoot. From the other positions I'm nowhere close to an MOA shooter and could easily get schooled. I'm out every month for 4hrs. I do practice from the other positions and at home and practice snapping in occasionally but that's about it I have far too many other priorities.

fireside44
March 6, 2010, 11:47 AM
How do you politely educate someone that their $200 plinker is NOT in the same class as a higher end more costly rifle?

Shoot tighter groups.

A accurate gun that costs 2g's with a fair shooter is less accurate than a five hundred dollar Savage with a great marksman behind it.

mljdeckard
March 6, 2010, 11:54 AM
I think a lot of people don't understand the Law of Diminishing Returns.

You can theoretically go forever. Tweaking, testing, trying again. Every improvement you get will cost you exponentially more in time and material than the last one. I have told people that you can take a stock Remington 700 VS, Bushnell optics, have the trigger lightened to 3 lbs, get some match grade ammo, and for about $1000 you will be able to do almost everything that a $4000 M-40A3 can do with Schmidt & Bender optics, etc.

Remember, only about 20 years ago, manufacturing standards were not nearly as tight as they are now. The gun magazines used to refer to the "elusive" minute of angle. You had to get a lucky rifle in the batch, have a custom rifle built, and use handloads to get it under an inch. It's not like that anymore. Competition and modern manufacturing techniques have made the market such that if a stock rifle won't do 1" or better with match ammo, it is behind the curve.

Uncle Mike
March 6, 2010, 12:07 PM
How do you politely educate someone that their $200 plinker is NOT in the same class as a higher end more costly rifle?

Most folks who are under the impression that their, or a, $200 rifle is in the same class as a $2500 rifle don't know what they are looking at, I mean a tube with a funny little handle looking thingy at one end wedged into a wood or plastic stock......

Politely educate these people without degrading their person or knowledge!

homers
March 6, 2010, 12:14 PM
Add to that the when the person wants a "cheap scope" for $100 bucks to put on top of their sub 1MOA shooter that has glass as good as $500 scopes.

jimmyraythomason
March 6, 2010, 01:04 PM
A accurate gun that costs 2g's with a fair shooter is less accurate than a five hundred dollar Savage with a great marksman behind it. This is true. Otherwise we could all win the Grand Prix if we just had Jackie Stewart's car.

jimmyraythomason
March 6, 2010, 01:07 PM
don't know what they are looking at Yeah go ahead and tell 'em that. see how far that gets ya!

Walkalong
March 6, 2010, 01:09 PM
A good pool player can beat my eyes out with a broom stick, but I'll give that rascal the better rifle and beat his eyes out. :D

Money buys a better chance of really good accuracy. The right money spent on the right product can buy guilt edged accuracy, if the shooter is up to it. ;)

jimmyraythomason
March 6, 2010, 01:13 PM
The right money spent on the right product can buy guilt edged accuracy, if the shooter is up to it. Can't argue with that!

Hatterasguy
March 6, 2010, 01:20 PM
Don't forget the optics, your can spend the price of the rifle again on optics.

Something like a nice Zeiss is serious bucks.


Personaly I'm not a very good shooter, I can hit what I want but even if I had a sub MOA rifle I probably would not be able to make it shoot that well.

benzy2
March 6, 2010, 02:42 PM
This goes directly back to the ability of the shooter. If both qualities of rifle exceed the shooters ability they often compare them as being equal and can't justify the cost. I can understand why that comparison is made. It doesn't make the lessor rifle equal to the greater rifle, but it also doesn't mean you could distinguish which rifle shot which group. For many people this is all that matters and all the better it is going to get. For this situation I can understand the comment that the budget rifle shoots for them no better than the expensive rifle. Like anything in life the better you want your skills and equipment to be, the exponentially more you have to spend. It doesn't make settling for 90% right and it doesn't make only accepting the best to be right, just different strokes for different folks. The gains diminish, but in general are still present.

Caliper_RWVA
March 6, 2010, 02:44 PM
It's just the law of diminishing returns and the fact that for an accurate rifle you are paying for stuff that you can't see, like a great action, trigger, bore, etc. But, between a $500 and $2500 rifle, how much of that premium goes towards the stuff you do see and that doesn't really help accuracy? Checkered wood stock vs composite? Extra polishing on the exterior metal and maybe some pretty engraving? When people pay $2500 for a rifle, most expect some eye candy and we know that adds to the cost. Also, consider that even a perfect clone of a $500 Remchester rifle would cost more if made by a smaller shop just due to economies of scale.

To answer the "hypothetical" (quotations because it does get asked) question above, you first have to define how the asker defines accuracy. Will someone be happy with 1MOA? Or are they wanting 0.25MOA? Will they be shooting standing in the desert or off a bench, indoors?

I think that often that question boils down to the best bang for the buck if the asker is totally honest. People know that a top end rifle is better made than a lower dollar one. Maybe not 5x better, but still better. They also know that not all $500 (or $300, or $2500) rifles are created equal and at any price range certain products are better bargains than others. If someone doesn't have the money for a $2500 rifle, they don't have the money and no amount of browbeating about how the expensive rifle is better will make money grow on trees. If $500 is all one has for a rifle, that's the budget, and they will put just as much consideration into that $500 purchase as someone who can just afford a $2500 rifle will put into theirs. To that person, $500 may be A LOT of money and they want to make sure they don't go wrong because most of us can't afford to just go and buy another $500 rifle if the first one shoots patterns at 50 yards.

Justin
March 6, 2010, 03:15 PM
If it's true that the cheaper guns shoot just as well as the more expensive ones, would someone mind explaining to me why competitive shooters at the top of their game run guns that are expensive?

jimmyraythomason
March 6, 2010, 03:23 PM
If its true that the cheaper guns shoot just as well as the more expensive ones Perhaps we are a little easier to please. If my rifle shoots a 5 shot group that can be covered with a quarter and costs $500 while your rifle shoots a 5 shot group that can be covered with a dime but costs 5-6 times more than mine what good is that(unless your are shooting competition matches for mega bucks)? Why should anyone care? What is the purpose in "educating" us poor dimwits that don't know what we are looking at unless it is that the "elitists" want our adulation or to pay homage to their great "skill"?

Justin
March 6, 2010, 03:42 PM
Ah, and there it is. The traditional and long held American narrative of 'slobs vs. snobs' rears its ugly head.

What I find so disconcerting is how these discussions always break down along some sort of class line, and always with the presentation of the false dichotomy of the rich guy with the cool toys who can't shoot the broad side of a barn from the inside vs. the working class guy with a bone-stock rifle that he uses to display his marksmanship prowess and embarass the fellow with the spendy rig.

Unfortunately, real life doesn't work that way. I know several shooters who would be considered quite wealthy by nearly anyone, and they have both the gear and the skill to make some phenomenal shots.

Likewise, I know shooters of limited means who are also possessed of a fantastic ability to hit what they're aiming at. In all of those cases (and I'm not a member of that first group by any stretch of the imagination*) these shooters invest in gear that the average gun owner would consider expensive. Sure, the middle class guy may not run a rifle from AI or JP, but you can bet he's sacrificed to invest a considerable amount of money nonetheless.

And the reason for this becomes clear the more you shoot:

You can indeed buy accuracy. Developing the skill, however, is a matter of time.

That said, if you've developed you're skill to a level adequate for your needs, there's nothing wrong with that. But humans are competitive by nature, and some subset of them will always strive to be the best, and they will do so by pushing the limits of their skill, endurance, and gear. In the long run, we're all better off as those on the cutting edge will make discoveries in technique and gear that will trickle down to the average shooter over time, which will result in his level of marksmanship becoming better.




*I'm actually writing this post while standing in the local walmart...

jpwilly
March 6, 2010, 10:20 PM
Differences between an out-of-the-box factory rifle a custom-built factory rifle...IMO:

Custom rifles usually have a hand lapped Krieger, Hart, Mike Rock, Gary Schneider, Danny Lilja etc etc barrel and are then screwed onto an action that is either a custom-built unit or it's a factory action that's been blue printed to true up the factory action. The stock will be from McMillan, HS Precision (Choate in my case HA HA) etc. The triggers will be gone over or replace with drop in units. Many times a custom bolt face and beefier extractors are machined. Over sized bolt handles, custom recoil lugs, heavy duty scope mounts and rings plus a bedding job from the rear of the tang to the end of the barrel channel. An action that is absolutely straight and true with a bolt that's been trued to the center line of the receiver and a barrel that has been trued to the action.

This is going a bit farther than most rifle makers will go at the factory. And this is what a $2500+ rifle is going to have done to it. So yes money buys precision or accuracy if you will.

No matter most of us can go get our $600-$800 Tactical/Police/Varmint Remchesters / Savage's and hang in there anyway! Buy the best you can afford. Shoot as often as you can. If your competetive go for it. If you just want to plink and have fun ditto.

Happy Shooting!

redneck2
March 6, 2010, 11:11 PM
Money can buy accuracy. It can't buy shooter skill.

As noted above, if a bone stock Savage, Remington, etc. could be just as accurate, that's what the bench rest boys would shoot.

A lot of guys shoot a lot better with the keys on their keyboard than they do on the range. I believe the term "selective memory" comes into play here.

nwilliams
March 6, 2010, 11:26 PM
Most guns no matter what the price are more accurate than the shooters who use them.

People love to blame accuracy issues on the fact that the gun is cheap when in reality most of the blame can be attributed to the human factor.

This applies to rifles, shotguns and handguns.

I should add that yes some guns are inherently more accurate than others and yes sometimes there is truth behind the phrase "you get what you pay for" but in most cases inaccuracy comes from lack of shooting experience not the gun itself.

conhntr
March 6, 2010, 11:37 PM
If its true that the cheaper guns shoot just as well as the more expensive ones, would someone mind explaining to me why competitive shooters at the top of their game run guns that are expensive?

cynical answer would be that they are paid by the manufacturers to use those firearms; to help sales. but the real reason is it is a significant factor at that level.

//Most guns no matter what the price are more accurate than the shooters who use them. //

ok

say im an expert and rock steady. shooters error = .20moa
say i have parkinsons ... shooters error= 2.0 moa

ok decent rifle mechanically capable of .50moa
steady shooter gets about .70
parkinson gets 2.50

say the other rifle is a 200 surplus gun capable of 3.5moa
steady shooter gets 3.70
parkinsons gets 6.0

so how is the "gun more accurate than the shooter"?
no matter how bad you are having mechanical inaccuracy built into your firing platform is not going to help at all!

jpwilly
March 6, 2010, 11:42 PM
cynical answer would be that they are paid by the manufacturers to use those firearms; to help sales. but the real reason is it is a significant factor at that level.
Why do we keep trying to draw comparisons between ourselves to shooting professionals and the equipment they use? Most of us are plinker's/hunters having fun and sharpening our skills with what we can afford and the time left after all other things are done = not a whole lot.

Money can buy accuracy. It can't buy shooter skill.

Bull, I'd be a better shot if I spent money on training developing skill much more quickly than I could on my own.

How do you politely educate someone that their $200 plinker is NOT in the same class as a higher end more costly rifle?

Why is it so hard. If someone told me their Surgeon, Cooper, AI etc was a better quality and more accurate rifle than my Savage I would whole heartedly agree. Someone who insists otherwise is probably not mature or ignorant and arguing on the Internet is like...

The_Pretender
March 7, 2010, 12:11 AM
Given the elasticity of the term accuracy, the simple solution is "to each his own."

I could buy a Ferrari Enzo. Does not mean I would be great at racing.

I could buy a beautiful Gibson Les Paul Custom guitar with a flame maple top, top of the line pickups and crank it in a vintage Marshall stack. But I still wouldn't be the best guitar player.

The tools provide the means, but it is up to the individual to produce the results, through rigorous practice.

You don't have to be a professional to be a great shot. You don't have to go all super-hyper-gung-ho-pirate-ninja-bear to be amazing.

If you do it for a living, you will acquire something custom to your needs. It may not be the most expensive, it may not be the most cheap. But it suits YOUR needs.

Don't ever let anyone tell you what is best for you. They can make suggestions, but it's up to you find out for yourself.

If you want to shoot dime-sized groups, you need to invest a little more. Whether it be the rifle, the scope, a tune-up, or handloads. You aren't going to get a gun off the rack, add a cheap scope, grab a factory box of rounds and put them all in a group that size at 300 yards.

Tiger Woods didn't get to where he is overnight. And you see all the million different golf clubs those guys use. Each bag is different, yet they all win and do very well. Tiger would be good with a set of Wal-mart Specials. But he would not be able to do some of the things he does with his custom gear.

Don't get offended or insulted. Your character is not measured by your investments. If you feel this way, you have far more serious issues to tackle than accuracy.

Shoot. Have fun. Be merry. Be safe.

nwilliams
March 7, 2010, 12:33 AM
so how is the "gun more accurate than the shooter"?
My point is that the gun is only as good as the person using it. Of course a higher quality gun can improve your chances of making better shots but true accuracy comes from a skilled shooter.

The reason why competition shooters use expensive guns is because they know who to use them and can take advantage of the characteristics of that rifle and make themselves that much better.

A novice shooter with little skill is not going to benefit from buying a $3000 rifle any more than he/she is going to benefit from buying a $300 rifle. People often think that you can spend more and magically achieve more skill, this is simply not true, whether it's guns or anything else.

Here's an example.

I used to work in a camera shop and I would get customers coming in all the time who had no photo skills at all but they wanted the most expensive camera they could get their hands on. These people assume that if they buy the most expensive camera they can find it will make them better at taking pictures. While it's true a more expensive camera will take higher quality images, the fact remains that they still can't take a decent picture to save their life. A professional photographer with a $200 point and shoot camera will produce better images than someone with no photo skills and a $2000 SLR.

jl1966
March 7, 2010, 12:50 AM
Depends on what you are comparing. It is easy to prove a point about accuracy. Go to the range with the guy you are debating with, put up a target, and shoot five shots. Measure the group. Have him do the same using his rifle. The one with the smaller group wins the argument. If you are shooting a custom bench gun and he is shooting a stock hunting rifle, he is probably an idiot, and you will prove it. If he outshoots you, then you are an idiot and have proven it.:o Targets dont lie. A smaller group is a smaller group. However, I have a $250 pawn shop Savage .270 that has embarrassed a lot of high dollar types. I love the way they shove that Browning back in their expensive Cabelas gun case with the monogram on it, and stomp their little L.L. Bean shoes off. Thing is though, they are out a week before deer season shooting their rifle, I dont see them in May or July, when I am shooting mine. In a stock rifle money buys style not accuracy, the money you spend on gunsmithing that rifle buys the accuracy.

Justin
March 7, 2010, 01:02 AM
A lot of guys shoot a lot better with the keys on their keyboard than they do on the range. I believe the term"selective memory" comes into play here"selective memory" comes into play here

This is one reason why it can be helpful to shoot competition. Competition offers a much more objective way to measure your skill level as a shooter, while allowing you to see where your strengths and weaknesses lie.

It's also incredibly fun.

Why do we keep trying to draw comparisons between ourselves to shooting professionals and the equipment they use? Most of us are plinker's/hunters having fun and sharpening our skills with what we can afford and the time left after all other things are done = not a whole lot

The vast majority of competitive shooters are average people with day jobs and families. Those responsibilities don't hold them back from achieving their goals. People who shoot for a living are actually a fairly tiny minority of the shooting community.

Justin
March 7, 2010, 01:12 AM
A novice shooter with little skill is not going to benefit from buying a $3000 rifle any more than he/she is going to benefit from buying a $300 rifle. People often think that you can spend more and magically achieve more skill, this is simply not true, whether it's guns or anything else

I think that generally speaking you may be correct, however there is a compelling argument to be made for starting off with better equipment. Sub-par gear can, in some instances ingrain bad habits. Shooting and practicing with, say, a rifle with a poor trigger will cause you to compensate for it in sub-optimal ways, and this means you will have to re-train yourself once you upgrade your gear.

On top of that, in some cases sub-par gear can frustrate you because you may hit a point where you are no longer seeing improvement in your skill level due not to poor marksmanship, but due to a crappy firearm.

scchokedaddy
March 7, 2010, 01:38 AM
I just do not uinderstand all the hoopla I keep seeing here about shooting a tight group. Fine for competition shooting if thats yoor bag, but for a humting rifle welllllllllll....... If the weapon shoots "cold shot" where you aim it then your deer,elk or whatever is dead. Thats what puts meat on the table. After killing somewhere around 175-200 deer in the last 43 years, I have yet to have a deer stand still for more than 1 shot much less a 3 or 5 shot group! Now in all honesty not all those deer were killed with rifle, probably a little than half were. The rest were killed dog hunting with shotgun. An old man taught me long ago that key to being a succesful hunter was #1 Be confident in your weapon #2 know your limits #3 do not shoot unless you are confident of your shot #4 ALLWAYS know whats around you,i.e. houses,other hunters property lines etc. He taught me the kill is only as good as the shot, in other words if the kill was clean and humane then you can feel good about it, but if was a sloppy gutshot or rear end shot what do you have to be proud about? Yes I do understand the pride in shooting a "high dollar" weapon but in the end do they kill any better? NO Now I shooot an A Bolt, an Interarms, 2 Rem 788's, Marlin 308 Express, or an XL7 when hunting most of the time. But when I go with the judge, he allways wants me to use one of his weapons, this is when I use the "higher end weapons with the zies {?} scopes, and yes they do feel mighty darn good, but do not kill any better. Now I do shoot all these guns alot during the year not just once in awhile, probably not as much as I should but enough to be familar with them as he does reload and likes to experiment with his "recipes". So I do understand where op was coming from, and even though I do not personaly own the type of weapon he is refering to, I do get to shoot them. And finally to answer his question, you can't!!!! They have to shoot both objectively to see the difference. But if they are only going to hunt with it you will never be able to educate them on the finer points of "custom" or higher end weapons. Sorry for the ramble, buy I had to get it out. Good luck and shoot straight

nwilliams
March 7, 2010, 04:32 AM
there is a compelling argument to be made for starting off with better equipment. Sub-par gear can, in some instances ingrain bad habits. Shooting and practicing with, say, a rifle with a poor trigger will cause you to compensate for it in sub-optimal ways, and this means you will have to re-train yourself once you upgrade your gear.
I would certainly agree with you on this.

However I wouldn't say that cost is really a factor in the overall picture. There are some very inexpensive guns with excellent triggers and some very expensive guns with horrible triggers. This is especially true in regards to handguns. I've owned many $500+ handguns over the years that had worse triggers than some of the sub-$500 handguns I've owned. It's kind of funny how some of the guns you spend the least amount of money on turn out to be better than than the guns you spent a lot of money on.

mcdonl
March 7, 2010, 06:53 AM
Justin Said:

That said, if you've developed you're skill to a level adequate for your needs, there's nothing wrong with that. But humans are competitive by nature, and some subset of them will always strive to be the best, and they will do so by pushing the limits of their skill, endurance, and gear.

I am not a rifle guy but when shooting pistols, that is why I like IDPA because for the folks who want to shoot, but cannot afford the higher end match guns the playing field is level. There is a reason that IDPA does not allow you to alter your gun. IT MATTERS :)

Now, when the guy holding the $300 rifle shoots at paper to prepare for deer... yeah, a $2000 rifle is a waste of money. But, when you are shooting for scores you have to be on the same equipment level.

It is like showing up to a NASCAR event with a Toyota Prias... they both "work" but one is faster than the other.

wanderinwalker
March 7, 2010, 08:01 AM
The vast majority of competitive shooters are average people with day jobs and families. Those responsibilities don't hold them back from achieving their goals. People who shoot for a living are actually a fairly tiny minority of the shooting community.


Justin, right on here.

I am a Highpower shooter. Many people would consider our gear "expensive"; I shoot a standard off-the-shelf AR-15 Service Rifle, replacement cost is probably $1200 in current pricing. Compared to a $500 bolt rifle, this is quite the rig! And it will likely outshoot a $500 bolt rifle, or at least give it a run for the money.

And don't always assume the shooter is the limiting factor in an equation of accuracy. Many old surplus rifles may shoot fine at 100 or 200 yards even, but start stretching to 300 and beyond and you will quickly see why competitive shooters go to great lengths over barrel quality and ammunition consistency.

Money spent on the right parts (barrels, ammo, decent sights, trigger) will certainly buy improved performance from any rifle.

jimmyraythomason
March 7, 2010, 08:24 AM
I generally put about $1000 per into my Mauser sporters. I do almost all of the work myself though I'm not a gunsmith. These are NOT bench rest rifles and can't compete with them BUT I do get some very good groups with them. If I wanted to shoot competition I would shoot the "best" rifle I could get. My shooting is informal target and hunting and for my purposes, my rifles, even my $450 Howa Lightning are just as good as one costing 3x as much.

jpwilly
March 7, 2010, 09:20 AM
even my $450 Howa Lightning are just as good as one costing 3x as much.

For your needs yes but your statement is what this thread is all about. Politely telling someone their $200 or in this case $450 rifle isn't the same as many costing 3x or 5x more. The "my rifle is just as good as one costing X more" statement is so vague.

I'm not bashing Howa either they make great rifles for the money I feel the same way about my Savage for the money.

But neither of us had our actions trued, bolt lugs lapped, quality hand lapped barrel fitted, custom trigger fitted, or even glass bedding of a nice fiberglass stock done at the factory.

Let's not claim they are just as good as X custom rifle that's been gone over meticulously by a builder. They do fit our needs and fulfill our needs.

ArmedBear
March 7, 2010, 09:41 AM
And the reason for this becomes clear the more you shoot:

You can indeed buy accuracy. Developing the skill, however, is a matter of time.


And many people simply never do, because they don't apply any thinking to their shooting, any more than anything else in their lives. They go make noise with a gun now and again when they "have time" which means when there isn't a game on TV, or a bunch of guys driving billboards in a circle, and if they "have money" which means after they've blown most of it mindlessly on crap.

"Slob" isn't about money or class, to me. It's about being a slob. There are rich slobs and poor slobs, and a lot of middle-class slobs.

It's perfectly okay to be a slob about something. Not everyone has to give a crap about whether they can put a magazine in the X ring. The "bug" bites different people differently.

Those don't commit themselves to shooting their best as a serious goal should not feel ashamed of this. There's sure nothing that says one has to do this, or anything else. It's a nominally free country.

However, putting those down who do make this a personal goal through practice, competition, and whatever other outlets there may be, just makes the person who does it look like an ass.

Kentucky_Rifleman
March 7, 2010, 09:44 AM
P.S. - I don't think there's anything wrong with an accurate gun being pretty either. A Cooper .22 LR.

Wow! Now that is a pretty gun!

KR

jimmyraythomason
March 7, 2010, 09:49 AM
even my $450 Howa Lightning are just as good as one costing 3x as much. This statement is true in my case. The problem comes in when someone tries to "educate" me on why I should spend x number of dollars to shrink a 1'' group to .5'' group. If I ask for instuction that's one thing ,volunteering why your rifle is superior than mine is quite another. I equate it to a recent tech school grad telling the 40 year vet he is doing his job wrong. FWIW at 100 yards I get one hole 3 shot groups with my Steven's Model 200 in .223 with 75gr match. I think that will improve when I upgrade the stock and trigger. But it wont cost $2500. Let's not claim they are just as good as X custom rifle that's been gone over meticulously by a builder. I haven't seen where anyone made that assumption. I have stated that mine suit my needs just as well as the high dollar guns.

SlamFire1
March 7, 2010, 09:59 AM
I think today's rifles are better than ever. Our bullets are far better than ever and that is a fact. No matter how good the barrel, you have to have good bullets to shoot well.

I have had any number of off the rack bolt rifles, Winchester, Remington and Ruger. I have had to bed the things to get excellent accuracy, but once bedded, was I was pleased to find they shot very well.

When I was a new shooter I would have unable to take advantage of the inherent accuracy of these rifles and bullets, but now, I do much better with them.

Money will buy better triggers, a higher probability of a better barrel and better bedding, but even expensive guns can have issues.

The most unfortunate thing is that we are saturated with advertising that creates the belief that you can offset poor shooting skills with expensive equipment. You can't. You have to practice.

However this idea that you can buy excellence without practice or skills has been created in every sport. Just look at sales of golf club, bowling balls, tennis rackets.

My three thousandth's post! All that wasted text and still have nothing to say.

jpwilly
March 7, 2010, 10:31 AM
Okay, the OP's question stated nothing about shooters skill. I understand and whole heartedly agree with you regarding skill being required but the op wasn't asking about shooter skills. In this case asking how to politely inform those who say that a $200 or $300 dollar rifle is just as good as X rifle know they are wrong...

jpwilly
March 7, 2010, 10:44 AM
Quote:
even my $450 Howa Lightning are just as good as one costing 3x as much.

This statement is true in my case. The problem comes in when someone tries to "educate" me on why I should spend x number of dollars to shrink a 1'' group to .5'' group. If I ask for instruction that's one thing ,volunteering why your rifle is superior than mine is quite another. I equate it to a recent tech school grad telling the 40 year vet he is doing his job wrong. FWIW at 100 yards I get one hole 3 shot groups with my Steven's Model 200 in .223 with 75gr match. I think that will improve when I upgrade the stock and trigger. But it wont cost $2500.
Quote:
Let's not claim they are just as good as X custom rifle that's been gone over meticulously by a builder.

I haven't seen where anyone made that assumption. I have stated that mine suit my needs just as well as the high dollar guns.


Unfortunately I feel this is a perfect example of what the op is referring to. The Vague statement you made regarding your $450 dollar rifle being just as good as those costing 3x can be taken by many readers to mean very different things.

You have clarified your statement to mean that the rifle fills your needs just as well as any rifles costing 3x more would. But NOOBS could take that to mean it's built just as well as a rifle costing 3x and that's what I believe the OP and I'm trying to point out. They aren't equivalent because your use and suitability is subjective to your "needs".

I'm not claiming to be perfect either. I've inferred the same things subjectively according to my experience and needs to others. That's the way it works. I'm trying to stay on topic with the OP's intent for this thread and because it's at the forefront of my mind. I will try to be careful how I convey my rifles quality and not be vague about it in the future too.

ArmedBear
March 7, 2010, 10:45 AM
how to politely inform those who say that a $200 or $300 dollar rifle is just as good as X rifle know they are wrong...

You can't. This is what they want to believe, for whatever their reasons happen to be. They probably say the same about every other item. Some people simply can't say, "I don't want to sacrifice other things in order to own X, but I can see how X is nice." They have to insist that the cheapest version of something is "just as good" as the most expensive. It's something about human psychology. I'm not sure if it's uniquely American, but it is rather common in the US.

Not all expensive guns are expensive because they're more accurate than a good production rifle, either. Grade V English walnut, high polish, and extensive engraving don't add any accuracy, but they cost money. I know it's weird to some people, but there's more to a gun than accuracy, once you've passed a certain threshold. Lab alcohol will get you drunk, too...:D

jpwilly
March 7, 2010, 10:53 AM
^^^ I think Proverbs 23:9 sums it up - pretty much...

Uncle Mike
March 7, 2010, 11:22 AM
I think Proverbs 23:9 sums it up - pretty much...

Do not speak your words to a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of your words....

Totally agree with you Armedbear concerning....They have to insist that the cheapest version of something is "just as good" as the most expensive. It's something about human psychology. I'm not sure if it's uniquely American, but it is rather common in the US.

All I know...it's not like that in some parts of Europe! They believe their stuff is the best, works best for them, and that my friend, is that! Well... it was that way while I did time there!

Hey...it's all just opinion anyway....and you cannot argue successfully with opinion! :)

Lab alcohol will get you drunk, too...

....hmmm, I have an idea! lol hehehehe :D

Rembrandt
March 7, 2010, 11:29 AM
....the OP's question stated nothing about shooters skill. I understand and whole heartedly agree with you regarding skill being required but the op wasn't asking about shooter skills.

Precisely the point, thank you for stating that better than I.

This theme holds true in many things, money buys speed, money buys horsepower, etc.......same holds true in many things from Olympic Bobsleds-to-firearms.

Justin
March 7, 2010, 11:52 AM
The bottom line is this: money will, generally speaking, buy a more accurate firearm.

If accuracy is the driving factor behind why you want to purchase a gun, you are not going to follow it up with "but I want to spend as little money as possible."

If you can't tell the difference in accuracy between a Ruger 10/22 and an Anschutz 2213, then you're better off with the Ruger, especially if you have no intention of competing in 50m smallbore matches. In which case, congratulations, you just got a gun at 10% of the cost of the Anschutz.

Modern factory guns built for the average consumer will, generally speaking, be possessed of an inherent level of mechanical accuracy to allow the average person to be pleased with the ability to adequately hit a target.

If that's all you're looking for, that's fine. Not every rifle has to hold up accuracy-wise on the 600 yard line, nor does every pistol have to make one ragged hole at 50 yards.

Perhaps the problem is that there is a lack of exactness in what most people are asking about. They simply say "I want an accurate rifle that costs x amount of dollars." without giving any real thought to just how accurate they need their rifle to be.

After all, if I start a thread saying "I want a rimfire rifle costing less than $300 that's accurate enough to shoot soda cans at 50 yards" what I'm asking for is completely different from "I want a rimfire rifle that will shoot the center out of a 50 meter smallbore target every time I pull the trigger, what does such a gun cost?" I'm asking two completely different things.

Welding Rod
March 7, 2010, 12:58 PM
I just do not uinderstand all the hoopla I keep seeing here about shooting a tight group. Fine for competition shooting if thats yoor bag, but for a humting rifle welllllllllll.......

That is becasue you are a hunter.

You need to realize a large part of the shooting community are shooters, not hunters. Of course some are both.

Shooters have a different frame of reference than someone who just shoots to kill big game at relatively close ranges.

Shooters don't go to the woods or range to shoot one shot and then go home. And shooters do own rifles that could be considered "hunting rifles", even though they don't hunt with them.

Personally I have no use for any rifle that won't do 1.5 MOA, and there are few I would be content with that don't shoot sub MOA, or sub 3/4, depending on the specific configuration.

However I understand why a hunter would think 1.5 perfectly adequate for that application.

bracer
March 7, 2010, 01:09 PM
To a point you get what you pay for. I started getting firearms in 1949 and have owned most all common brands. The most expensive brand owned are a pair of Cooper 57 M LVT 17HM2 and a 17HMR rifles. Next to the Cooper rifles are two Anschultz 22 rifles. Shooting off a bench rest I get better, that is smaller groups with them than any other brands of rimfire rifles I have owned but they were the less costly models. I have an old 30-30 Win that at best will shoot three inch 100 yard groups. Is it accurate , plenty accurate for shooting a deer at 100 yards. But for shooting prairie dogs ,unless I can put five round into a 1/2 inch group at 100 yards its not accurate. Most of the rifles I own have ben in a middle price range . But accuracy has ben improved by glass bedding the action, free floating the barrel, lapping the bolt locking lugs, recrowning the muzzle,and trimming off a bit off the magazine box. Adjusting the trigger does not improve the accuracy of the rifle but helps me shoot better groups.

jimmyraythomason
March 7, 2010, 02:33 PM
built just as well as a rifle costing 3xThis is different from "performing just as well"(for the intended use). Anyone familiar with manufacturing practices and materials would not make such an assumption. Now true a NOOB needs more instruction than someone my age and experience but only if he WANTS it will he be open to it. The old axiom of teaching an old dog new tricks ,as long as the old dog is happy with the way his tricks perform, is true.

usmc1371
March 7, 2010, 02:52 PM
For me as a non hand loader when I was looking for a varmint rifle that happend to be an AR and wanting the most accurate rifle I could find I had to spend a fair amount of money to get it.
I wanted an AR, I wanted .204 ruger, I wanted sub .5 moa with factory ammo, I spent 2,300$ and I got it. Plus 800$ for a scope that is up to the task. Les Baer super varmint with a lepold 4.5x14 vx3 LR. And I don't expect my ruger 300wm to shoot half inch but then elk are alot bigger than sage rats.

berettashotgun
March 7, 2010, 03:04 PM
Cubic DOLLARS prevails at the racetrack.
In competition it DOES MATTER.
Be it firearms or boats or cars.
Any game that utilizes equipment has minimum standards ($$$) for said equipment that simply cannot be ignored.
Never saw John Force lose to a stock 1978 Vega. Think you could beat him with your 2010 GT500 'stang?:rolleyes:
You think you can beat David Tubbs with your CMMG bargain bin AR ? Even think you stand a snowball chance in hell of getting on the target with the first shot ? :rolleyes:

Sometimes we all get caught up in the MOA vs. MOD ( minute of deer ) argument.

An individual's accuracy requirements are the same in competition, but relevant to the task at hand as defined by their needs.

1858
March 7, 2010, 03:33 PM
How do you politely educate someone that their $200 plinker is NOT in the same class as a higher end more costly rifle?

Simple ... invite them to attend an F-Class match or 2-day precision rifle course with their rifle!! I have a $650 Savage 16 in 7mm-08 that is just fine for hunting most deer-sized game out to 300 yards or more but I certainly wouldn't use it in our F-Class "tactical" matches or the precision rifle classes that I've attended. I have a Remington 700 Ti Alaskan in .300 WSM which costs three times as much as the Savage, but the deer/elk won't know the difference!! Again, I also wouldn't use the Remington in either situation mentioned above.

Consider this "custom" rifle that anyone can put together for the costs shown:

Badger Ordnace M2008 short action $980
Krieger 26” fluted stainless 1:10 barrel (MTU contour) $420
AICS 1.5 SA stock $800
CG X-Treme Mod 22 two-stage trigger $350
Gunsmith fees:
Reaming “match” chamber, headspacing bolt, installing barrel $350
Painting $100
Incidentals $100

TOTAL: $3,100

So what do you get for $3,100? You get a 100% reliable, blueprinted, extremely accurate (sub 0.5 MOA), fast, rugged, practical rifle that will perform exceptionally well in F-Class, practical or tactical matches as well as at the range or hunting.

Action:
60° bolt throw with an an M16 style extractor that can be disassembled without tools. The precisely fitted and polished three-lug bolt along with the short throw ensures 100% reliable feeding during rapid fire drills e.g. 10 rounds in 60 seconds. The precision machining (blueprinting) ensures that the bolt face is square to the bore and zero binding of the bolt (speed and accuracy). Two integral locking lugs and flat base on the action guarantee no movement between the action and stock (accuracy, reliability, repeatability). The lug insert ring ensures the correct headspacing for ANY Badger SA bolt (ease of repair if bolt lost or broken). Integral (changeable) 20 MOA picatinny rail that is held in place with four screws AND two pins.

Barrel:
Barrel is polished (lapped) to a 16 micron finish. The barrel is very accurate (see the number of world records held by Krieger barrels) and won't foul even after 100 rounds. Negligible difference between POI of cold bore shots to warm/hot barrel shots. No change in POI as barrel heats up.

Stock:
A complete aluminum frame with removable (replaceable) skins that is very rigid, thermally stable and rugged. A 10-round detachable box magazine, adjustable LOP and cheekweld, multiple bipod and sling mounting options, folding stock option.

Trigger:
First and second stages adjustable from 0 to 3lbs with ball bearing pivot points.

Now add some good rings such as Seekins Precision 34mm ($100) and an excellent scope such as the Premier Reticles Heritage 3-15x50mm ($2000) and you have a total cost of $5,200. This is no small chunk of change but you will never outgrow this rifle (the caliber maybe). With some practice (prone with bipod) you will easily be able to put 10 rounds in 0.5 MOA in 60 seconds at 200 yards and 10 rounds in 0.5 MOA in 70 seconds at 300 yards. Try that with a $1000 .308 bolt action rifle let alone a $500 one.

:)

1858
March 7, 2010, 04:02 PM
One recurring theme in my post above is that money doesn't just buy accuracy, it can also buy speed, reliability, ruggedness, consistency and longevity. Things tend to break under stress (no pun intended) and unless you put yourself and your rifle under stress you most likely won't discover the weaknesses of your system. Going to the range and single feeding round after round from the bench, chatting to your buddies and generally dicking around as so many do (I see them week in and week out) and waiting for the barrel to cool isn't my idea of stress. These folks tend to think that their $500 rifle and their $300 scope are just as good as a well thought out $5,500 setup. Funny how none of them come out to the matches despite the open invitation.

Another really good test of your system is to let someone else use it and see how they do. I did that recently and a good friend who doesn't shoot very often and never shoots prone managed just over 0.5 MOA (five-shot group at 100 yards with my reloads) from a bipod. I was pleased with that particularly since he'd never shot that rifle before and he only shot five of my reloads.

:)

unit91
March 7, 2010, 04:54 PM
I think the real answer here is "who cares?" If you love to shoot, and can shoot well, an expensive set-up is very reasonable. If shooting is a once a month (or season) semi-hobby for you, a $400 set-up is equally reasonable. There's no shame in either scenario, so long as we're all man enough to accept that not everyone has the same priorities I do -- and that's fine.

AzBuckfever
March 7, 2010, 05:02 PM
I would say that money can buy the equipment for accuracy....but as long as you have someone behind the rifle who has recoil anxiety (flinches), no trigger control, no stability, etc....it don't matter if you have a $5,000 rifle. You aint gonna shoot straight :)

jmr40
March 7, 2010, 05:16 PM
Lots of guys don't have the skills to shoot well. For them a $200 rifle truly is just as accurate as a $2000 rifle.

AzBuckfever
March 7, 2010, 05:26 PM
Exactly. I think the interpretation of you get what you pay for is misleading when it comes to firearms. For instance, a Barrett 50 cal. is over $2000.00; but you think you can shoot sub MOA with it :) I have a Marlin POS .22 that was built by Sears or some crap....and I'll bet I can shoot sub MOA with it :)

Justin
March 7, 2010, 10:17 PM
And again we go right back to the sterotype of "the rich guys have the toys but not the skill" vs. "Bubba doesn't have the toys, but does have the skill."
:rolleyes:

AzBuckfever
March 7, 2010, 11:26 PM
Funny how the rich boys always hire the Bubbas to do their hunting for them; aside from there being no target painted on the side of their game; just another day at the range for the rich boy. Perfect shot, perfect distance, perfect whether :) Always amazes me when they show up with their rifles that they purchased for a couple thousand....even more when I could find the same rifle for half what they bought it for :) I've even had a guy or two in passing tell me that it'll be the "first" time they've shot their rifle.

jl1966
March 7, 2010, 11:31 PM
It seems some are trying to compare their stock savage hunting gun to a custom bench gun. If this be the case, no, there is no comparison to be had there. However, it is my experience that accuracy wise a stock Savage or Remington will be more accurate than an out of the box Weatherby or Browning, even though the first two cost less. If we begin to apply money in equal amounts to these guns will the costlier two eventually become more accurate than the cheaper two. If you buy a $3000 bench gun and spend the difference on improving the Savage, how big a difference will there be in the two at the end. One wonders.

Justin
March 8, 2010, 12:44 AM
Well, azbuckfever, I suppose you're to be commended on your skill in selling hunting trips to empty-headed idiots who are waving fistfuls of cash at you.

It's rather a pity, though, that your posts really don't have much of anything to do with the topic at hand.

twofifty
March 8, 2010, 01:00 AM
I don't have much money so my firearms are pretty ordinary, but accurate enough for the games I play. What money I have gets spent on practice time and ammo, and on match fees/travel expenses.

The rifles are now starting to do what my mind tells them to do. The handgun, on the other hand, still has a mind of its own.

;-)

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
March 8, 2010, 01:06 AM
Most guns no matter what the price are more accurate than the shooters who use them.

People love to blame accuracy issues on the fact that the gun is cheap when in reality most of the blame can be attributed to the human factor.

I can't even begin to tell you how 180 degrees wrong that is, at least in my experience. I used to think that too, that it was just me - dammit why do I suck so badly. Turns out I didn't...when I got some *accurate* guns, and find the *right* ammo for the gun, it made accuracy many many times easier.

I'd say that more often than not, it's one of the other two legs of the tripod (i.e. ammo or gun, not shooter) that is the cause of bad accuracy (5-6 MOA or more). BTDT, got the t-shirt.

Good rifles make a HUGE difference. You've got to have the skill also, but many who spend time behind a trigger have this skill to varying degrees. But you've GOT to have a good rifle, and ammo that it likes.

scchokedaddy
March 8, 2010, 01:07 AM
Welding Rod, Armed Bear I apolize, I believe I missed the point the first time arouind. After rereading op and all comments I see what you are saying. Yes I do realize that I am only a hunter and do not have the desire to shoot competition, so that puts a different spin on my first opinon. But I thought maybe I missed the original issue, and I did by fourty miles!!! Sorry my other post was so far off. (and unneccessary). I do wish someday to have a custom not competition rifle, just don't know what I want. You guy's give a person like me plenty to think about. I really do enjoy learning from reading what ya'll have to say. I used to want a Jarrett, but have kinda changed my mind after never seeing him mentioned here. Seems the best way is to figger out what I want to do first, then ask here for advice. And yes after shooting my friends rifles while devoloping loads, it dang sure does feel good to shoot those groups of 1/2-1 inch. Yea ya'll are about to convionce me to quit dragging my heels and go for it. Last but not least you can't convince someone you have to show them the difference. If that don't work then don't lose any sleep over it as you did try. Hunters need to remember that the quality they have now is because ya'll allready did all the work, and made manufacturers take note, i.e. research and devolping loads as well as calibers. The many benifit from the few. Thanks for not flaming my sideways post. Good Luck and Straight Shooting

AzBuckfever
March 8, 2010, 02:31 AM
Well, azbuckfever, I suppose you're to be commended on your skill in selling hunting trips to empty-headed idiots who are waving fistfuls of cash at you.

It's rather a pity, though, that your posts really don't have much of anything to do with the topic at hand.
Never said I was a guide....just talk to a lot of stupid people with expensive rifles :) It's rather a pity that you post the same comment twice.

My statement was no matter what type of rifle you have, if the person behind it can't shoot, nothing is going to be accurate. The equipment improves accuracy, agreed, but lets not assume that just because you buy a $3,500 .338 Edge; that you're going to be able to crank a round out to 1500 yds. and be accurate.

Dookie
March 8, 2010, 03:13 AM
I always think of firearm accuracy just like drag racing
You have a couple of choices buy or build.
First choice, buy. You just bought a 12 second car. Done.
Second choice, build.
You just bought a 17 second car. It is fairly easy to get it to 14 seconds. Now you have to buy a complete suspension, intake, exhaust, engine, tires, and lots of meters. I had a friend who builds race engines, he told me that anything under 14 seconds is a grand a second and gets more expensive the faster you want to go.

jimmyraythomason
March 8, 2010, 07:06 AM
I built my 12 second (in a quarter mile) 289 Ford in 1974. It turned consistant times and did it without balancing or blueprinting. It would turn in lower times when one of the more experienced(re:better) drivers would put it through it's paces.

jl1966
March 8, 2010, 09:06 AM
This little story kind of adresses the good gun, bad shooter thing. I shoot PPC with some success, not an expert or master class but I do O.K. in my class. I also shoot matches loosely based on IDPA rules, do O.K. there too. Recently a nice older couple has started to show up in the shooting circles I travel in. They both have very high end guns and equipment, they just cant shoot well. We all try to help them, mostly advising them to practice, but you can just feel them searching for that thing they can buy that will let them bypass the practice and training, and go right to cleaning clocks in the match. I was telling the guy recently how to practice for a faster reload, and he was fussing about his mag holder, which is actually something similar to a dump pouch with 12 .45 mags in it. Remember I said "loosely" based on IDPA. I really like the equipment they use, but would not trade the limited skill I have manage to accrue through practice and professional and personal training.;)

mcdonl
March 8, 2010, 09:27 AM
Lots of guys don't have the skills to shoot well. For them a $200 rifle truly is just as accurate as a $2000 rifle.

I resemble that remark... :)

How do you think I feel, I dont have the money OR the skill... lol... Oh... and I am a terrible hunter too :)

Snakum
March 8, 2010, 09:28 AM
It used to be true that money buys accuracy, perhaps. But not today when off-the-shelf Savage, T/C, and Marlin bolt guns are shooting sub MOA groups with factory ammo. I have fully benched a Savage 111 ($498) right out of the box with just a couple swabs down the barrel and gotten sub MOA groups with Winchester Power Points. I have seen someone else break out his new Thompson/Center Venture ($429) and shoot a half inch group after cleaning it for the first time. And everyone and their dog is shooting Marlin XS/XL bolt guns sub MOA with factory fodder. I spent less than ten dollars in Devcon and aluminum bar stock to stiffen my XS7 and bed the recoil lug and it will hold MOA to 600 yards with factory ammo. My shooting partner shot a 3/4" group at 200 yards yesterday with Georgia Arms match ammo ($19 a box!).

So I'd have to say, based on my personal recent experience, money no longer buys accuracy. Not even close. And this makes it difficult for manufacturers to continue to justify higher prices for bolt guns when Savage, T/C, and Marlin are coming out of the box shooting more accurately and more reliably than many $1200+ rifles (Kimber and Dakota comes to mind here. Sorry.)

It's a good time to be a poor gun nut. :D

jpwilly
March 8, 2010, 09:29 AM
I'm with Dr Tad on this! I've shot a lot of rifles over the years and rifles that cannot hold a group are traded unless they are collectible. My first precision rifle was a DPMS AR-15 that I purchased over 5 years ago. It will shoot even inexpensive ammo into 1" groups and better ammo into 1/2" groups. Until then most of my firearms were Mil Surplus rifles shooting Mil Surplus Ammo. I find precision much more fun to practice with because I can call the fliers so when I screw up I can see it in the group and verifly. Precision is a Great Training aid! For that same reason precision 22LR's and 17's at much closer distances can be the best training behind a trigger you'll ever get.

Uncle Mike
March 8, 2010, 10:12 AM
Money does buy accuracy, and some other important stuff you wont normally get on a production unit. But the void between accuracy gotten from big dollars of investment and what you can get in a production rifle for small dollars is greatly narrowing by today's standards.

30 years ago you would pay upwards to a thousand dollars to get a rifle capable of accuracy on par with 4 out of 5 of today's production firearms...which STILL do not cost a thousand dollars!

1858
March 8, 2010, 02:30 PM
And everyone and their dog is shooting Marlin XS/XL bolt guns sub MOA with factory fodder. I spent less than ten dollars in Devcon and aluminum bar stock to stiffen my XS7 and bed the recoil lug and it will hold MOA to 600 yards with factory ammo. My shooting partner shot a 3/4" group at 200 yards yesterday with Georgia Arms match ammo ($19 a box!).

:what: Just imagine what the Marlin could do with reloads!!

I suggest that you and your XS7 head off to the nearest 600 yard F-Class match and put everyone to shame. You'll cause quite a ruckus I'm sure with your 8lb (?) set up since you should have no problem placing all 20 rounds in the 10-ring (1 MOA) in 20 minutes right? I can just see those poor guys and girls with their $$$$ 18lb rifles being put to shame by your little Marlin. Even better is that you don't even need to waste any time reloading. Based on the data you posted HERE (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=510216) ... you can just grab a box of your .308 du jour and get to work. PLEASE post a video on YouTube showing the whole humiliating experience! You're going to single-handedly turn F-Class on its head.

Once you've done that, I suggest that you head over to New Mexico to clean up at Zak's steel challenges. Those poor deluded souls wander all over hell's creation with their "heavy" $$$$ rifles and optics. Little did they know that all they needed was a $200 Marlin and a Redfield scope. You'll be able to buy three or four more Marlins with your winnings!

:)

MachIVshooter
March 8, 2010, 03:24 PM
I just do not uinderstand all the hoopla I keep seeing here about shooting a tight group. Fine for competition shooting if thats yoor bag, but for a humting rifle welllllllllll....... If the weapon shoots "cold shot" where you aim it then your deer,elk or whatever is dead.

Depends on what you're hunting. My .220 Swift is consistently .7 MOA at 200 yards with the load I've worked up. And it needs to be. Praire dogs are small targets. I'm not concerned with cold bore, since that'll only be the first of dozens of targets, so if I miss, oh well. And it happens; I just had this rifle out on Saturday to check zero for the coming season. First shot of the first group was almost an inch higher than the other four that made a single hole at 100 yards.

With a big game rifle, OTOH, cold bore accuracy is very important, since target value is higher and you may only have one shot.

Either way, a more precise firearm can only benefit the hunter. It can never hinder him. A better rifle will have less deviation between cold bore and follow up shots.

offthepaper
March 8, 2010, 03:47 PM
Fear the indian, not the arrow.:evil:

JohnBT
March 8, 2010, 03:56 PM
"Funny how the rich boys always hire the Bubbas to do their hunting for them"

Maybe it's just that where you live nobody else is desparate enough to work for them except the Bubbas. :) I don't know anybody that has ever used a paid guide.

John

Geno
March 8, 2010, 05:03 PM
Rembrandt asked:

Every week seems there are 3-4 threads that have a common theme....

"I want an accurate rifle......but can't spend any money", make a recommendation.

When someone suggests a gun that's more costly than the average, posters invariably respond that their $300 Blah Blah shoots just as well as those overpriced priced rifles.

The frustration with these posts is that my definition of accuracy and those asking the question are apples and oranges.....clarity of what the poster expects the rifle to do would be helpful.

How do you politely educate someone that their $200 plinker is NOT in the same class as a higher end more costly rifle?

Oh man. Another one of these threads. I always get so confused, ‘cuz I think I’m at THR, but look around and think I might be sitting smack-dab in the middle of a proctologist’s office based on some of the posts. :D

I don’t know why the Hades folks buy what they do. Butt it ain’t just shoe-ters and rye-fulls. Now, when I was still a high-priced edjamakaatur, and fixin’ to dew my Pee.ah Dee, I had myself 3 Rolex watches. I also had my old Casio plastic watch that I wore to instruct Taekwondo. Damnedest thing was, that old Casio kept better time than my Rolexes. I’s see’d folks buyin’ 750 HP Mustangs, and they’s never had race driving lessons. My wife of 25 years asked me to buy her a Viking gas range. I assured her that if she ever learns to cook, I promptly will make the purchase. Trust me, it’s painful obvious that woman ain’t never took no cookin’ classes. I see’d a fella what bought himself a nice Weatherby Mark V Deluxe in .378 Wea Mag. He shot 3 rounds and he didn’t want no more, as he literally rolled backwards off-a that bench! He walked over and asked that fire the rest of the rounds to sight-it in for him.

Now, as to how to edjamakate ‘em, I suspect they’s a lotta Walter Mitty in a whole lotta folks. They have delusional fantasies of grandeur that if they just buy a better rifle, a bigger, faster bullet that they’ll shoot better. Now, when I was still actively instructing Hunter Safety, I used to ask folks what they intend to shot? Where? At what distance? I can’t understand the fella who would tote an F-Class rifle with 42X scope into the woods for deer hunting. At a certain point, the intended equipment gots’ta to match the intended event. Now all o’ yall’s F-class rifles won’t do you much good on the family farm, ridin’ “shotgun” in the tractor cab, ‘cept for the 4 or 5 fives you’ll have to dispatch a critter or 3. And if you gotta fire that high-priced gadget 10 times to hit 3 targets, we ain’t gonna be too impressed regardless the cost, $200.00 or $2,000.00!

Sorry to wander into the wrong office fellas. Any o’ ya'll see’d my therapist?!

GeeKnow

AzBuckfever
March 8, 2010, 05:52 PM
JohnBT
Member

Maybe it's just that where you live nobody else is desparate enough to work for them except the Bubbas. I don't know anybody that has ever used a paid guide.

John

I refer to Bubbas in a general sense of those who are willing to do the work themselves for the hunt....and yes, where I live and hunt (Arizona - Hunt AZ & UT), there are A LOT of rich folk wanting to pay the "Bubbas" to do the work for them. Lots of horror stories are well about bad guides and clients for that matter. But, the clients normally show up with the Swarovski binos, the $2,000 rifle that was sighted in by a gunsmith, etc. I try to avoid them if I can, but they're not hard to identify when you see 'em.

Thread is getting hijacked again. I stick with my opinions....you can buy accurate equipment but can money buy accuracy, no. Unless you're referring to shooting lessons :)

A proven point to the bias opinions and also educated opinions of some are a comparison of Remington vs. Savage. Most of the forums you search when people compare the 2 as to "which one to buy"; people say the Savage is more accurate, and a better gun; but Remington costs more :)

1858
March 8, 2010, 06:04 PM
I had myself 3 Rolex watches. I also had my old Casio plastic watch that I wore to instruct Taekwondo. Damnedest thing was, that old Casio kept better time than my Rolexes.

Oh great, not only do we have to endure the endless car analogies ... now we have to suffer through watch analogies too. I suggest you Google CHRONOMETER and then go look up a schematic for a quartz crystal LCD watch! Education's a bitch!!

:rolleyes:

m500'92
March 8, 2010, 06:06 PM
I haven't noticed much difference in accuracy between a custom $2000+ rifle or a $300-500 savage, the only difference I see is the quality in how they're made, big difference there. That said I'll stick with savage, they work, they shoot, what more do you really need

skiking
March 8, 2010, 06:06 PM
Can money buy accuracy? For production rifles, probably not, and if it does, the difference will be minimal, you are typically paying for better fit and finish. But you will have a much harder time building a 1/2 MOA rifle for $1000 than you would if you spent $3000. Does that mean the shooter will automatically shoot 1/2 MOA groups, probably not unless the skill is already there, but it may improve the shooter's ability by providing a better trigger, and/or a better stock. You can spend all the money in the world on a rifle, but if you aren't capable of shooting tiny groups, you won't shoot tiny groups.

Geno
March 8, 2010, 06:34 PM
1858:

Guess it must be, cuz seem to have missed the irony hidden by intent in my joke: Rolex created the quartz watch, not Timex, or Casio, etc. Rolex simply didn't submit the copyrights/patents, etc. So, along come the Japanese and they do so. A few years later, we got Timex. Sometimes even labor-intensive hand-work is less precise than high-technology...witness the Surgeon rifles' quality, due to their obsessive attention to tolerances. :) Now there's a fine shooting instrument!

My point is, lots of people make purchases that they don't need, due to name, or Walter Mittyism or keepin' up with the Joneses. If you feel too uptight, you can attend the anger-management sessions next door with me. :D

Geno

1858
March 8, 2010, 06:56 PM
If you feel too uptight, you can attend the anger-management sessions next door with me.

I'll be over shortly ... but in the meantime, I don't see anything analogous between a chronometer from Rolex and a quartz crystal LCD from Casio and a $3,000 custom rifle to a $200 one from Marlin or Savage. The analogy doesn't work for me since it compares two very different technologies. I can see how someone with a $20 Timex won't necessarily see the worth of a less accurate Rolex (chronometer) costing a few hundred times as much. For the record, I don't own a Rolex although if I had $7,000 to spare, I'd buy a GMT II in a heartbeat. I do own an LCD Timex (Ironman)that I use at the gym and during F-Class matches.

:)

Geno
March 8, 2010, 07:18 PM
1858:

Wee auhl kneed two git edjamakated sum tyme. Tha-que four inn-four-ming mi. :) Wee pee-ahc-dees ain't real brite.

Gee-Know

Snakum
March 8, 2010, 07:21 PM
You'll have to excuse 1858, his reading comprehension ain't quite up to snuff.


I suggest that you and your XS7 head off to the nearest 600 yard F-Class match and put everyone to shame. You'll cause quite a ruckus I'm sure with your 8lb (?) set up since you should have no problem placing all 20 rounds in the 10-ring (1 MOA) in 20 minutes right? I can just see those poor guys and girls with their $$$$ 18lb rifles being put to shame by your little Marlin. Even better is that you don't even need to waste any time reloading. Based on the data you posted HERE ... you can just grab a box of your .308 du jour and get to work. PLEASE post a video on YouTube showing the whole humiliating experience! You're going to single-handedly turn F-Class on its head.

Once you've done that, I suggest that you head over to New Mexico to clean up at Zak's steel challenges. Those poor deluded souls wander all over hell's creation with their "heavy" $$$$ rifles and optics. Little did they know that all they needed was a $200 Marlin and a Redfield scope. You'll be able to buy three or four more Marlins with your winnings!


It is what it is. Every time the gun was fired there were four or five other shooters watching, one of whom posts here. If you're pissed because you spent $2000 on a weapon that won't shoot any better than an off the shelf Savage, don't take it out on me. And if you don't like the thread ... don't read it.

Art Eatman
March 8, 2010, 07:35 PM
This is getting to be a circle-track race. Roundyroundyroundyroundyget dizzy...

If you enjoyed reading about "Money buys accuracy?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!