MOA Accuracy vs Investment to Get There

[bikemutt]

I know this comment is OT somewhat, but it's just an observation I had some years back, around the time I stopped chasing tiny little groups....If you enjoy the discipline of precision marksmanship, and have the time and money to chase it, by all means go for it.

CLT65, I hunted hard every season for birds, running up hills, down hills, many times sliding down said hills on my butt, and there's nothing I would rather do than be chasing wily roosters on a crisp fall day behind my dog. But, getting older has a way off reminding us that what was easy to do back then now takes a week or two of rest and a trip to the chiropractor to repair. I still get out once or twice a year and try to bust a few birds for the dinner table.

This gradual transformation is what got me into precision rifle, it's an activity I hope to enjoy until I'm very close to my last breath on this earth. It's an unhurried activity in a hurried world, it's not as easy to master as many folks think, and between those tiny bug holes there's always a surprise. And yes, it's pursuit is not without financial cost, same as most things worth doing well.

Lets say it's my idea of shuffleboard for aging shooters

 

[arakboss]

I have been thinking about this topic of investment vs accuracy again. My thought is to develop a scoring ratio for determining whether I should proceed with an accuracy upgrade or not. The formula would be the expected increase in accuracy (represented by MOA improvement) divided by the cost of the upgrade = Value score of upgrade. The greatest value would be 1 and as the number goes lower than 1 the value of the investment becomes less favorable compared to accuracy gained. I would come up with a predetermined number that I would considered a no go zone for an upgrade. Here are a few examples to demonstrate how this would work.

All examples assume I own the rifle with a scope and it currently achieves 3 MOA with ball ammo.

Example 1: I add a $20 spring kit that lightens the trigger by 3lbs and that tightens my groups by a half MOA.
.5 (MOA improvement) / $20 (spring kit cost) = .025 (Value Score)

Example 2: I buy a new $500 scope which improves my group size by 1 MOA.
1 (MOA improvement) / $500 (new scope cost) = .002 (Value Score)

Example 3: I buy a new high end $600 barrel which improves my group size by 2.5 MOA.
2.5 (MOA improvement) / $600 (barrel cost) = .0042 (Value Score)

The trigger spring kit obviously provided the best bang for the buck. The $500 scope would have provided the least bang for the buck. For this system to work I will have to arrive at a number that will be my red line for improvement vs cost value. That number might be .005, .010 or .75. I haven't figured that number out yet.

What would you spend for a one MOA improvement $100, $300, $1000?

In my case I have to be conscious of the fact that I will have numerous rifles that I will be contemplating doing upgrades too. Some upgrades such as a an optic, a bi-pod or fancy projectiles could be shared across multiple rifles so I would have to adjust the cost of that upgrade to account for that.

That is where my mind wandered to today.

 

[bikemutt]

I have been thinking about this topic of investment vs accuracy again. My thought is to develop a scoring ratio for determining whether I should proceed with an accuracy upgrade or not. The formula would be the expected increase in accuracy (represented by MOA improvement) divided by the cost of the upgrade = Value score of upgrade. The greatest value would be 1 and as the number goes lower than 1 the value of the investment becomes less favorable compared to accuracy gained. I would come up with a predetermined number that I would considered a no go zone for an upgrade. Here are a few examples to demonstrate how this would work.

All examples assume I own the rifle with a scope and it currently achieves 3 MOA with ball ammo.

Example 1: I add a $20 spring kit that lightens the trigger by 3lbs and that tightens my groups by a half MOA.
.5 (MOA improvement) / $20 (spring kit cost) = .025 (Value Score)

Example 2: I buy a new $500 scope which improves my group size by 1 MOA.
1 (MOA improvement) / $500 (new scope cost) = .002 (Value Score)

Example 3: I buy a new high end $600 barrel which improves my group size by 2.5 MOA.
2.5 (MOA improvement) / $600 (barrel cost) = .0042 (Value Score)

The trigger spring kit obviously provided the best bang for the buck. The $500 scope would have provided the least bang for the buck. For this system to work I will have to arrive at a number that will be my red line for improvement vs cost value. That number might be .005, .010 or .75. I haven't figured that number out yet.

What would you spend for a one MOA improvement $100, $300, $1000?

In my case I have to be conscious of the fact that I will have numerous rifles that I will be contemplating doing upgrades too. Some upgrades such as a an optic, a bi-pod or fancy projectiles could be shared across multiple rifles so I would have to adjust the cost of that upgrade to account for that.

That is where my mind wandered to today.

I recently recalibrated my target efforts towards having fewer calibers, one for now, and fewer rifles. It costs a lot of money to put decent glass on multiple rifles, same for triggers, muzzle brakes, etc. When I reached the point where I could not recall when I last shot a particular rifle, I knew I'd become a hoarder, lol.

Figured I'd rather have one, really high end rig, than a whole bunch of mediocre ones.

 

[arakboss]

I recently recalibrated my target efforts towards having fewer calibers, one for now, and fewer rifles. It costs a lot of money to put decent glass on multiple rifles, same for triggers, muzzle brakes, etc. When I reached the point where I could not recall when I last shot a particular rifle, I knew I'd become a hoarder, lol.

Figured I'd rather have one, really high end rig, than a whole bunch of mediocre ones.

I am in the hoarder category for sure. I have firearms I bought years ago and have yet to fire them.

 

[Hueco]

The biggest bang for your buck, I'd guess, would be ammo.

 

[bikemutt]

I am in the hoarder category for sure. I have firearms I bought years ago and have yet to fire them.

I consigned some guns recently and discovered I had not one, but two unfired KSG shotguns in the back of the safe . The sad part is not only did I forget I had them, I don't even recall buying them .

It actually felt cathartic to clean out the cobwebs and start over. I kept a rifle I bought from a member here a few years ago, a Sig SSG3000. It was issued chambered for .308, I think they all were. In any event, it takes a few minutes to swap barrels on the rifle, Benchmark up in Bellingham makes barrels in a number of calibers that share the bolt face, like 6.5 Creedmoor, 6 Creedmoor and others. If I feel the need to expand calibers I can simply buy the appropriate barrel, done. I'll have to DOPE the scope but the chassis, trigger, mag and everything else will stay the same.

I've hatched more than my fair share of harebrained schemes, this may be another one of them, time will tell .

 

[oremike]

'Tis the American way to manufacture a problem and then throw money at it. If you want bench-rest accuracy first you need to start with a bench rest rifle and shoot from there.

 

[TTSX]

............

 

[Koda]

A cost vs group size formula doesn't include a fun factor metric..... If you can afford it, get it, life is too short to hold back on what brings you enjoyment. Im currently waiting on a custom barrel install myself, I dont care about cost but the enjoyment will be priceless.

 

[RVTECH]

A cost vs group size formula doesn't include a fun factor metric.....

This is kind of the way I see it.

I can shoot close to ragged 1" , 50 yard groups with a 26" .30-30 kneeling - and that is perfect for pine cone killing and jack rabbit shooting - and I am still at 2" or less at 100+ yards.

While I have at one time 'messed' with rifle/scope/ammo combos to get the tightest groups at a given distance I find the 'fun factor' much greater with 'open irons' and lever action rifles.

In conclusion it's all about what you find to be the the most fun, appealing - and 'relaxing' shooting style you like with a particular firearm.

 

[jbett98]

This is a very long read about a Houston Texas mans 10 year experience in perfecting the ability to shoot consistant shots thorough the same target hole at 100 yards. It can be done.

Secrets of the Houston Warehouse

 

[arakboss]

The biggest bang for your buck, I'd guess, would be ammo.

I think you're right about that.

 

[bikemutt]

I think you're right about that.

Ammo, if you handload it, can get very expensive. It's mostly a capital cost which may be amortized, but it ain't cheap.

Want to throw powder to 0.02gr? $1500 for the scale and the thrower.

Turn necks? $1000.

It goes on and on.

No shooter has to do any of these of course.

And, just when you think you have it all, a new mousetrap shows up