Online Source for Rifle Accuracies

>>32337847
>fuck, I missed

>>32338348
And I missed again. Posted in the wrong thread

>>32337847
Shame accuracy tests aren't more common, and are usually in videos or difficult to extract data from. JUst have to keep googling and looking in gun forums.

>>32337847
Because accuracy largely depends on the ammo and not the gun.

adding onto

>>32338388

Watch this to learn why that is

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h407yVskVeM

and all of sniper 101 if you really wanna learn.

>>32338372
>>32338398
That's a huge shame, and I understand why it would be hard to find such accurate info. But, regardless, there must be some information somewhere, otherwise how could anyone claim guns are improving?
There has to be some group that tries to collect such data, and I sure as hell hope it isn't just in youtube videos.

File: railguncompeition.jpg (180KB, 1000x740px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1000x740px

>>32338715
Accuracy tests exist, but they have to be done with standardized ammo with repeated conditions.

When the military tests are rifle they aren't really saying "this is how accurate this rifle is" they are saying "this is how accurate this rifle is with nato ammunition #xyz" when fired from a rig.

Rifles aren't really getting any more accurate. They are already maxed out, and they look like pic related.

You can say semi-automatic rifles can be made more accurate now than they used to be, but that's really just because machining has gotten more precise.

>>32338847
when the military tests a rifle*

and semi automatic rifles can be made pretty damn precise, but the limiting factor right now is cost. If you want to spend a shitload per rifle you can get something that can be shot down to .5moa under perfect conditions, but the military is never going to pay that much for it since the advantage is minimal and civilians don't typically because they can just buy a bolt gun for 1/10th the cost that is just as accurate

Because real life isn't a video game faggot OP.

It's pretty safe to say that any quality production firearm for the past 100 years has had greater accuracy potential than its shooter. Much longer if you want to cherry pick specific arms. The metrics of firearm progression is measured in more than accuracy, which is a variable. It really just sounds like you are some single focus autist making no attempt to grasp the larger picture.

>>32338847
I don't doubt that, but I want to know what actually is the "maxed out" accuracy of rifles, or how precise semi automatic rifles, cause so far I actually hadn't got a clue as to any of that. I want to be able to claim that I know something about guns based on actual knowledge other than video games and movies.

>>32338885
Faggot OP here. Just because I want accuracy data on guns, doesn't mean I don't understand that cost, reliability, weight, etc are all important factors as well. I want to find data on accuracy because I don't want to have to become a literal firearms expert to know the basics of what's good and what's bad, and definitely something as basic as general accuracy.

No such data exists outside of general MOA ratings for guns, and even they are not standardized. The average MOA you get out of the gun will depends on how well a gun is put together/how well a barrel is bedded, how long the barrel is, what twist rate it has, and at what range it is being tested at. And that's all before you even take the bullets into account. What types of powder are you using, how much powder, what type of bullet and how heavy of a bullet?

You can very easily take a gun capable of sub-MOA accuracy and shoot massive groups using shit ammo. You can also reduce accuracy by using a bullet that is too light/heavy for a given twist rate.

tl;dr: What you are looking for does not exists becasue there are too many variables. The closest you will get is to brows precision shooting forums and gather your own data of what people shoot using what loads, and even then you data will be tainted becasue of different shooting conditions, skill of shooters, and bench set ups.

File: 1476061828598.jpg (61KB, 359x379px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 359x379px

>>32340794
Well, I'm disappointed to hear that, lol. As a final question, the only one I can ask now, is are there ways then to pretty decently be able to at least compare the general accuracy of one automatic rifle over another? There must be ways to compare one gun vs. another, at least based on bullet type or barrel length, etc.