Realistic Accuracy Expectations

April 2, 2015

While accuracy is the great god of the rifleman, its single-minded pursuit may occasionally obscure some of the facts of life. The difference between one-minute accuracy and two-minute accuracy is the difference between heaven and hell to the purist, but I sometimes wonder if it matters much in a weapon intended for general use in the field.

A one-minute weapon will strike within one inch its point of aim at two-hundred yards, while a two-minute piece will strike within two. You can’t see that increment with anything but a high-power telescope, and you couldn’t hold that close if you could see it, from any field position.

This is by no means intended to disparage the splendid achievements of both our hobbyists and our commercial manufacturers in their continuing search for the ultimate in precision. We should only hear in mind that even three-minute accuracy may be all a hunter can appreciate, and that four minutes may suffice a minimally-trained soldier who is shooting at man-sized targets under conditions of great excitement.

– Jeff Cooper

Colorado Pete
Apr 03, 2015 @ 23:07:25

Thanks, hadn’t seen that one before, good stuff. Interesting how “the more things change the more they stay the same” for the most part. The comments under the article were interesting reading too.
So that’s the seed that planted the Scout Rifle concept.

LikeLike

John M. Buol Jr.
Apr 04, 2015 @ 12:00:06

>> So that’s the seed that planted the Scout Rifle concept.

Looks that way. I don’t know if this was the first mention and photo of Cooper’s Remington 600 with intermediate optic but it has to be one of the first.

As with the .30 U.S. Carbine, the sights on the AR15 are good and the trigger is terrible. I don’t see any sporting potential for this piece, but I may be overlooking something. If one disregards its astronomical price ($200 by the time you’ve bought a couple of extra magazines) it seems a very nice arm for second-line combat or defensive use.

Ah well… So his crystal ball was tarnished.

>> The comments under the article were interesting reading too.

Yes, less clownish than is usual. Read more: http://www.gunsandammo.com/historical/carbine-compromise

John Tate
Apr 05, 2015 @ 08:10:11

Three responses; two practical; one petty.

1. Given that each gun is shooting “ammunition that it likes,” the difference between a “one-minute-gun” and a “two-minute-gun” is often production tolerances. But while the gun with the closer tolerances will likely shoot more precisely, it will also likely be quicker to jam due to powder residue, dust, dirt etc. In a “field gun,” reliability is certainly more important than a bit more precision.

2. In the operation of a system, the errors of each component are additive. If error in one place can be reduced, then there is more room for error somewhere else. Thus a good shooter with an excellent rifle may be competitive against an excellent shooter with only good equipment. Especially in highpower rifle competition, it is simply impossible to be competitive against world class shooters without a world class gun.

3. There’s a minor and obvious typo in the second paragraph. A one-minute weapon will strike within one inch its point of aim at [ONE]-hundred yards, while a two-minute piece will strike within two.

John M. Buol Jr.
Apr 05, 2015 @ 08:30:55

>> But while the gun with the closer tolerances will likely shoot more precisely, it will also likely be quicker to jam due to powder residue, dust, dirt etc. In a “field gun,” reliability is certainly more important than a bit more precision.

True enough. While Cooper didn’t get into that, this is another reason to not be overly obsessive about mechanical precision in field arms.

>> Especially in highpower rifle competition, it is simply impossible to be competitive against world class shooters without a world class gun.

Also true, but the precision requirements are more stringent here. The decimal targets used in Across The Course competition have 1 MOA X rings and 2 MOA ten rings. A 2 MOA rifle can barely clean targets in perfect, consistent conditions. Even if these non-existent conditions are present that still isn’t good enough for top shooters because the event is usually won by X count.

>> 3. There’s a minor and obvious typo in the second paragraph. A one-minute weapon will strike within one inch its point of aim at [ONE]-hundred yards, while a two-minute piece will strike within two.

No typo. At two hundred yards a two MOA firearm shoots four inch groups. Given a zero yielding point of impact at point of aim at 200 yards and ignoring conditions, any fired shot will be within two inches of the correctly-called point of aim. A one MOA firearm (two inch group at 200 yards) keeps any fired shot within one inch of the correctly-called point of aim

Colorado Pete
Apr 06, 2015 @ 12:39:26

I notice he says “The difference between one-minute accuracy and two-minute accuracy is the difference between heaven and hell to the purist”.

Nowadays it is the difference between one minute and a half-minute.

In ’66 I was 9 years old. In late ’73 I discovered Cooper in a G&A magazine article about his .38 Super alloy Commander using cut-off .223 brass and hot loads. In the summer of ’74 I picked up “Cooper on Handguns” and became a lifelong fan. That year or so he founded IPSC. In ’76 I graduated high school and went off to junior college at Trinidad CO for the gunsmithing program, where there were already guys having pro/con Cooper arguments. A lot happened for me in those ten years. And yet today Cooper’s thoughts are still in large part relevenant.
Smart guy.

John M. Buol Jr.
Apr 06, 2015 @ 14:14:23

.38 Super? That gamer cartridge? :)

Yes, LTC Cooper was a sharp one! Still very relevant.

Firearm User Network