original topic was whether you could hit a quarter with an AR at 1000m) and my reply was long, so I thought I'd start another thread. The comment I wanted to talk about (by JohnKSa) is: I've thought about this lately. I'm trying to learn and improve, and I think I understand what JohnKSa is talking about, but it is sort of confusing and frustrating at the same time. If you are shooting tight groups (even if they are way low and to the right, for example), does that mean both you and your weapon are consistent in performance? But what about being accurate? Are those two the same thing (consistency and accuracy)? Wouldn't accuracy be putting the projectile exactly where you want it to go, and not just proving that the weapon puts the projectile consistently in the same place when you fire it? So I guess I'll call one "consistency" and the other "accuracy" In my mind, I don't see how consistency is a goal in and of itself. Wouldn't it be more like a stepping stone on the way to accuracy? I imagine that you would: Get a weapon that is simply consistent (or modify it to improve consistency) Prove it is consistent on a "lead sled" or similar rest Learn to shoot consistently with it Then learn to shoot accurately with it (adjust the point of impact). Am I on the right track? I'm getting the idea that accuracy may involve as much art/guestimating/gut-adjustments as it does science (whereas consistency is more science). I'm thinking of stuff like "Kentucky windage" here. And I imagine that it only comes through practice? Maybe tuning your sighting system? Both? I just don't get the point of consistency without taking it a step further and achieving accuracy (by effectively adjusting your system and/or yourself for conditions such as distance and wind). Am I missing something?