"Only accurate guns are interesting" and other things I changed my mind about.

[raz-0 1,259]

So, what have you changed your mind about the more experience you get under your belt shooting?

 

I used to be a big believer in the old adage that "only accurate guns are interesting". Especially in this area, it doesn't take a lot of money, time, or effort to be accurate enough that you have run out of range before running out of gun. My most accurate rifle and pistol rarely make it out of the safe, mainly because they are boring rather than interesting. Not to mention that other than working your brain a bit working up a good load, most of it is about learning to pull the trigger like a machine, and learning to read the wind. Learning to read the wind well is useful, but not very easy to do without more than 300 yards of range available to you. Even then, the whole thing was one-dimensional and pretty boring.

 

Accurate guns aren't interesting, versatile, well rounded guns are interesting and fun, and becoming a versatile and well rounded shooter is interesting and fun. Fun guns get shot, and being good with a gun makes it more fun.

 

Another thing I used to believe was that a cool looking gun justifies its place in the safe just by looking cool. These days I believe that cool looking guns can be looked at on the internet for free. Heck, I'll still pay extra for a cool looking gun over something I find less appealing all else being equal, but to part me from my money, it has to bring much more than looks to the table.

 

I also used to believe that a picky, specialized gun was OK. These days, I can't abide a gun that doesn't run well and reliably. If it doesn't do both, you are either asking too much of the platform, tried to be cheap where it wasn't worth it, or made a bad decision about something you did to your gun.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

My purchases are based on what i need, i'm not at the point where i have what i need and am buying what i want. Do i need a rifle that can reach out over 1,000 yards, no, but i want one. I need a reliable and accurate rifle and pistol that can give me confidence between 5 feet and 300 yards. Once i get the bare bone arsenal i can go from there. One day i would like to have a large caliber rifle that can reach out 1,500 yards and be able to hit a target but i am far off from that point. I'm more of a buy what i can use not what it's capable of. many things offset the decisions people make while purchasing firearms, as long as you can justify the purchase. I usually go for the best bang for buck route. Although i wont lie, i paid a premium for my ruger exclusive target. Sometimes when u find something u like and need, then find out there is an exclusive that you like(hogue grips) u just cant say no. A good way to look at it is whether or not u may regret the purchase. Could i have bought something better more useful for the money?

[reloaderguy 30]

My purchases are based on what i need, i'm not at the point where i have what i need and am buying what i want. Do i need a rifle that can reach out over 1,000 yards, no, but i want one.

 

You certaintly do need one when the crap finally hits the fan!!!!!!!!!!

[MedicYeti 96]

I have reached a point in my collection where I have guns that can perform almost any task I want. I have a 308 bolt gun and can consistantly hit a paper plate at 600 yards. I have 3 AR's which satisfy CQB, long range and the third which is set up for shooting High Power Competitions. I have handguns that fulfil the 5 divisions of IDPA pistols. I have 22's and Mil Surp. I have guns that can be used to hunt anything in North America. I love to look at guns and think about what is next, do research, read reviews and daydream about shooting them. Before I buy I ask mysely "What nitch does this fill and what does this do thatthe others can't?" often times this question leaves me realizing I don't "Need" another gun. That doesn't stop me from wanting and I will still buy guns but not as often as I have in the past. I have spent time and money personalizig and improvig my current collection in leu of adding to it.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

You certaintly do need one when the crap finally hits the fan!!!!!!!!!!

Still not sure what i would be shooting at 1000 yards or even past 300. Besides it would be a total waste because i dont even have any training using high power scopes and long distance target shooting. What good is a 1000+yard rifle if you cant hit anything. But like i said i will get one when the time is right, when i have the barebones to defend at close contact. Figure you have to be prepared to use the gear you have, i purchased an AR rifle and pistol for now and have been learning how to operate and maintain them as well as building up a sustainable amount of ammo for them. When you take into consideration what is actually needed the barebone arsenal with lots of ammo is better then a wide variety of firearms with less ammo. Then take into consideration the training and know how to use each firearm.

I dont even own a shotgun yet, so i figure next purchase will be one then more ammo, and more ammo, and then probably a savage in 308 with a nice scope(but i could effectively buy 10,000 round of 5.56 with that price point)

[MrP 81]

I used to think that Glocks didn't appeal to me.

 

I now know for sure that I can't stand them.

 

I also believed for a short while that loading my ammo wasn't something I wanted to pursue, good lord I was lost.

[Shane45 807]

"only accurate guns are interesting" I would say this is true. But for me there is an adder. In the types of shooting I do, they must be reliable and durable as well. Finding the convergence of accurate, reliable and durable is what usually drives the prices up. When I consider what I own, none of my "working guns" lack accuracy. If they did, they would be out the door. But for me this is also true of reliability and durability. I dont shoot any disciplines where accuracy is the overwelming factor. Bench rest shooting, for example, heavily weighs accuracy over say field reliability. Theres nothing wrong with this, its just not one I participate in. If I were to collect guns then I suspect my criteria would be the history, rarity or uniqueness of the piece would be the interest, not its accuracy. But in the end I never discount the fact that sometime a simple unexplainable fondness for a firearm makes it interesting

[RecessedFilter 222]

Although the gun does have something to do with it, I think that for the most part, the shooter makes the gun accurate. Not the other way around..

[RecessedFilter 222]

I used to think that Glocks didn't appeal to me.

 

I now know for sure that I can't stand them.

 

 

Could not agree more!

[Shane45 807]

Im speaking in terms of mechanical accuracy, not shooting technique. Personally I like to have equipment that exceeds my abilities, that way I always know its me

[raz-0 1,259]

Im speaking in terms of mechanical accuracy, not shooting technique. Personally I like to have equipment that exceeds my abilities, that way I always know its me

 

In general, I err on that side of things too, but that really isn't that expensive anymore unless you want to do it with some oddball platform. For example, I think 18" barreled FALs are really cool. But I really don't want to pay for one that can hold MOA out to 300 yards compared to say building up and ar-10 style rifle. The reality is I'd rather get good at say hitting a 6 inch plate at 100 yards quickly with my ar-15 unsupported. Since my change of heart, I realized there's a whole pile of things that, from the shooter side of the equation, are matters of accuracy but still pretty achievable with a 2 moa rifle. I wouldn't consider a 2moa rifle all that accurate, but that may just be a matter of cultural bias induced by folks who think only accurate guns are interesting.

 

 

Would I like to have a 1000 yard rifle? Sure, in a perfect world. Would I like to learn to shoot 1000 yard shots? Hell yeah, I love learning new things. But without a range a short drive away to accommodate practicing such, I doubt I'll get the chance to do that.

 

But I'll say it again, since nobody has really added much to it. What have you changed your mind about since starting shooting.

 

I'll add one more. I used to think heavy guns were preferable. Now I think lighter guns are better. There's definitely such a thing as too light, but you want to keep it as light as you can without it being detrimental.

 

Not saying any of these things are facts, just changed opinions.

[Old School 611]

Im speaking in terms of mechanical accuracy, not shooting technique. Personally I like to have equipment that exceeds my abilities, that way I always know its me

 

Thanks for bringing some sense to this!!!

[Shane45 807]

NP OS

 

Raz-0, the venue matters in terms of acceptable accuracy. The test target on my EMC is a .6 for 5 @ 100. That very good accuracy in most peoples book I think. BUT when Im running and gunning with it, I can tell you it aint getting fed FGMM as the tarets are all 10" or larger! It will get milsurp which should yield sub 2 moa accuracy which is perfectly acceptable in that invironment. However, consider that in a battle rifle invironment with ammo that is the limiting factor, this is very good accuracy. Some battle rifles are lucky to get 5moa! But here is where the rifle's attributes effectively assist in accuracy. One of the issues I had with my LMT MWS was simply its weight. Off hand shots at 100m were difficult because it was hard to hold up the weight which caused you to bob and weave more. If you were shooting on the move parralel to the target this was MUCH worse. I did not have this issue with my SCAR17. The weight diff between the two was around 3lbs! the lighetr rifle allowed for better accuracy. Now if you talk about a rifle capable of precision fire at 1k you are essentially talking about a different accuracy requirement and I submit that in this venue a rifle that isnt accurate isnt going to be very interesting. A firecracker and a rifle that cant hit anything are both just noise makers. On the topic of weight, weight is relative to what you are doing. Shooting an unlimited class bench gun free recoil in a sled, weight is probably good. Trying to come under a certain weight to be legal in F-Class, weight is bad. Running and gunning or shooting a sniper competition where your humping it all day, again weight is bad. So the accuracy of a rifle is relative to what type of shooting your doing with it and how intersting it is in that venue(shooter skill not withstanding). In your example of an FAL, I think you are mixing up expense and value. My FAL held roughly 1.5 moa and actually it was cheaper than any of my current rifles!!! My buddies is a bit of a mutant as his is under moa. Both are DSA FALS. BUT the difference im talking about is the cost difference to make an accurate FAL vs an accurate AR10. It is simply MUCH harder to make an FAL more accurate than it is an AR10. So is it worth the greater expense to make a FAL accurate when its probably half the price to achieve the same accuracy in an AR10 platform? If my AR10 didnt perform, I could likely get under 1 moa with a new barrel of quality manufacture. If I wanted to get the DSA under moa.... I dont even want to think about it! The AR10 is the better value. Scopes, Rifles etc etc, when you want all the features packed into 1 unit, I find it is usually expensive

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

If the question is "What have I changed my mind about as it pertains to gun ownership?" my answer is this:

 

I bought a handgun a little over a year ago because I thought it might be useful for home defense. I thought I would shoot it a little in the beginning, then practice with it every once and awhile, and that would be it. What I have come to realize is that the likelihood of needing it for HD is minute, but that the fun is in taking it out to the range and practicing with it. So much so, that I've added a couple of more HG's (soon to add a fourth), a couple of .22 rifles, and a shotgun, the last now being my primary HD weapon.

 

If the question is "What does accuracy mean to you?" as seems to be the subject of this thread, my answer is:

 

My goal is a reasonable self defense accuracy, or about an 8" circle near COM with my HG's. I've been working hard to quickly acquire my target, and to develop sufficient trigger control to place my shots in that area. So far I'm still pretty bad at it, but through relentless effort, I seem to be improving.

 

With my .22 rifles (10-22 and 15/22), I'm content to be able to put marks on a 12" target at 50 and 100 yards using just

iron sights. I'll never win any competitions like that, but in a SHTF scenario, I'll have a decent chance to keep the zombies at bay.

 

BTW, I frequently see guys at the range with their rifles in a lead sled or similarly braced, using a high powered scope, and shooting tight groups. Unless they are comparing ammo, I fail to see the challenge or skill in that. Am I missing something?

[Shane45 807]

OGC, I think its just a different discipline. I tend to agree that it almost seems more of a test of load dev than anything else. Just not my cup of tea. 98% of the time if Im shooting my precision rifle, its off the deck using a bipod. But I prefer my shooting to be somewhat representative of shooting out and about and I dont carry a bench around with me

[raz-0 1,259]

If the question is "What does accuracy mean to you?" as seems to be the subject of this thread, my answer is:

 

 

Nope, the thread is about things you changed your mind about. You completely got the point.