Have your thoughts on accuracy changed over the years?

[tazman]

Mine surely have.
I remember buying the cheapest ammo I could find to shoot through my Winchester 72A. I expected to be able to hit a squirrel in the head at 20 yards. I was spending about 35 cents a box of 50 rounds at the time. Early 60s. I could walk into my local hardware store ad drop the money on the counter and walk out with the ammo, no questions asked.

Now, if I can't get a half inch group or smaller at 50 yards, I felt like I had a bad day.
The ammo I am buying now runs anywhere from $10-$20 a box of 50 rounds. Practice ammo runs less but is still close to the same accuracy.
I have to jump through hoops and show identification and permits(FOID) to buy any now.

I bought that rifle second hand from my brother for $20 in 1962. My last rifle was $700 but it was a match rifle. The last hunting 22lr rifle I purchased cost $450.

Far cry from days gone by.

[Bent Ramrod]

I’m rather underwhelmed by the percentage of first-try duds I see in domestic .22 RF currently made. And the differences in the reports a few of them make from those of the rest of the box, with the associated verticals. I never remember any occurrences like this on the .22s I bought from KMart at fifty cents a box (on sale) back in the 60s.

Evidently, this isn’t just me. I have a large Baggie full of range pickup .22s with one firing pin strike on the rims. The bases have “F,” “R,” “Win,” and “CCI” on them. I run them through my 06 pump rifle, with the big fat firing pin and scabby bore, and some don’t go off at all, no matter what area of the rim is struck. I’ve started valuing the steel-case Russian Junior ammo I’ve accumulated more highly, since any of those duds (average one per box) have always fired the second time, anyway.

As far as accuracy, except for dedicated target guns, I’ve been gradually moving away from Whelen’s “Only accurate rifles are interesting” to Cooper’s “If it was half as accurate as it is, it would still be twice as accurate as it needs to be.”

[dverna]

If anything, the newer CF rifles are generally more accurate than what I could buy in the 70's. My groups are better now so if anything accuracy has improved.

RF is more of a question mark for me as I do not shoot RF competitively anymore. Seem to get more misfires but I mostly just plink with .22's so accuracy is moot.

I did not have a lot of money in the early days, and it was relatively expensive to shoot. Now, I find the opposite to be true. I am too cheap to "waste" 1000 primers or 500 rounds of .22 plinking when I can sell them for $100-120. I can afford to waste the money but it seems "wrong". I can plink with an air gun for $30-40/1000.

I have no use for a gun that will not delivery acceptable accuracy. Acceptable depends on the intended use.

[Winger Ed.]

I'm not a big .22 guy, but What I've noticed in center fire:

The explosion of hand loaders in the 80's raised the bar for accuracy with factory ammo.
And it got better, for the same price.

With the popularity and prices coming down in that era for chronographs,
made ammo makers more honest with their published speeds too.

Advancements in machining, scopes, and modern production equipment made factory rifles more accurate 'out of the box'.

The end results as opposed to what was OK in the early 80's:
2-3" groups with factory ammo and sport barrel production rifles, 'ain't good enough anymore'
when just careful hand loads will bring groups down to 1"-ish in the same rifle.

[303Guy]

I was never satisfied with my achieved accuracy but was forced to accept it anyway and I could hit anything I aimed at. Except for my 22. I don't recall being dissatisfied with that and with cheap high velocity ammo. For some reason I had to have high velocity because it impressed me. I still like the sound and 'recoil' (for want of a better word) of HV 22's. I now want one hole groups at 25m/yds. High hopes and of course I get disappointed. Thankfully my original 22 is now once again producing those bug hole groups I used to get with it. And then comes open sights. I still 'expect' bug hole groups. Don't get them though. I also want my eyes to see perfectly. Don't get that either.

[Bigslug]

Yep. I usually sweat it a lot less than I used to.

Specialized rigs or something that shows extreme promise? Sure, I might go the extra mile and wring it out with some higher grade rounds.

But once the sights are zeroed and the bench knowledge is initially gained, I've kinda lost interest in continually re-proving what a rifle - especially a rimfire rifle - is capable of doing off sandbags. Take away the artificial supports and it's usually the HUMAN component that needs the most work. Give me cans, water bottles, empty shotgun shells, clay pigeon fragments, etc..., engaged quickly and at distances enough to highlight what MY problems are.

[Hick]

Definitely changed over time. I never thought much about accuracy as a young man because I only had an old 22 and no good place to shoot. So-- when I could I was happy no matter what. After I retired and had the time and $ to collect I got intensely interested in accuracy. But-- over the past few years I have mellowed some. I still want accuracy, but mostly I want loads good enough to hit the little 2 - 3" dingers at 100 yards for pleasure any time I can get out to the range. That's about 3 or 4 MOA (It would be more like 2 MOA if I hit them every time, but I don't). If I can get that out of my rifles (including the old ones) I'm a happy camper and enjoy the hobby.

[Nobade]

The worse my eyes get, the lower my expectations are. I'm to the point now where I ask, "is it good enough?" Bughole groups are nice but if the elk's heart is 8 inches in diameter it's kind of a waste of time. Each firearm needs to give a good performance according to what it is and what it's for, if it does that I'm happy.

[MostlyLeverGuns]

I have noticed large improvements in the bullets available for reloading, both jacketed and lead. Using modern glass and components many older rifles shoot much better than many expect. New production jacketed bullets and modern higher magnification scopes let me shoot groups with my lever guns, my so-called brush rifles(308,243?), Marlin's and Savage 99's that most would call good from bolt guns. Factory 243 ammunition has always been carefully made and very accurate. It is not difficult to improve on 30-30, 32 Special and 35 Rem factory cartridges accuracy. Modern components - cartridge brass, bullets, primers and even powder just seem to be made with less variance than what was available in the 60's and 70's. Modern optics also are far better and make accurate shooting easier.

[LtFrankDrebbin]

I have had only the one 22 for well over 25 years now, an old Lithgow 1B. Originally on iron sights I was chuffed at clover leafing three shots at 25 yards.
Then I had a scope fitted. Some how then I expected ragged one hole groups at 50 meters plus.
Now I have gotten real with myself and the gun, 1 1/4" groups +/- at 50 meters is well and truly minute of critter and that'll do just fine

[rbuck351]

I like an accurate rifle (1/2 moa is accurate for me) but for me it is not needed. If I can hit what I want it is accurate enough. For the most part, I have been this way all my life.

[Mk42gunner]

Purely for groups on paper, yes; for small game hunting, not really. The places I hunt, you can't see a squirrel at more than about 35 yards, so as long as I can get one inch or so groups at 25 yards I'm fine with that for squirrels and rabbits.

Centerfire rifles are another thing entirely.

Robert

[hoodat]

I made my bones back in my early years, shooting muskrats with various 22 rifles, primarily scoped. Shots were on swimming rats, usually 25 yards or less. Strike zone needed to be basically from the ears forward. Hits much further back than the ears turned a six dollar pelt into a buck fifty.

I learned that a good fitting rifle, and off-hand shooting skills were much more important than +/_ 1/2" on my fifty yard groups. I usually kept my scope tuned by shooting a fence board at about ten yards, and shooting at the hole again. Had to repeat any time I changed ammo brand.

I'll brag that I was very good at it, and when I missed, I usually erred on the side of caution. I absolutely hated to have the fur buyer give me $1.50 for a pelt that had a hole in the neck. jd

[Stephen Cohen]

I am lucky I am still using .22 ammo I purchased well over 20yrs ago, I recently got some ammo of new manufacture that shot poorly in all 4 brands. I agree that Factory c/f ammo has improved out of sight. I agree most new firearms shoot better than most of us can. Regards Stephen

[monadnock#5]

I still enjoy the challenge of shooting for accuracy, but the trouble is it's not nearly as much fun as it used to be. As I age it brings as much frustration as it does satisfaction. So to compensate, I've taken to high speed shooting at reactive targets. Not a lot!! Just enough to put the big smile on my face for the ride home. My S&W M+P 15-22 was worth every cent.

[Winger Ed.]

As I age it brings as much frustration as it does satisfaction.

There's a simple solution for that.

When I have a flyer, I look around and say, "OK,,, which one of you spazzos was shooting on my target"?

[monadnock#5]

In truth, I'm not above taking credit for a fantastic hit on a target I wasn't aiming at. LOL.

[303Guy]

I made my bones back in my early years, shooting muskrats with various 22 rifles, primarily scoped. Shots were on swimming rats, usually 25 yards or less. Strike zone needed to be basically from the ears forward. Hits much further back than the ears turned a six dollar pelt into a buck fifty.

I learned that a good fitting rifle, and off-hand shooting skills were much more important than +/_ 1/2" on my fifty yard groups. I usually kept my scope tuned by shooting a fence board at about ten yards, and shooting at the hole again. Had to repeat any time I changed ammo brand.

I'll brag that I was very good at it, and when I missed, I usually erred on the side of caution. I absolutely hated to have the fur buyer give me $1.50 for a pelt that had a hole in the neck. jd

You've just reminded me - I honed my off-hand shooting skills with an airgun shooting rats at a chicken farm. I shot thousands of rats! It was an accurate gun and many of the targets were moving. Not very far though but open sights and at night with a torch. Lots of fun with a gun. The 22 came after that.

[tazman]

I still enjoy the challenge of shooting for accuracy, but the trouble is it's not nearly as much fun as it used to be. As I age it brings as much frustration as it does satisfaction. So to compensate, I've taken to high speed shooting at reactive targets. Not a lot!! Just enough to put the big smile on my face for the ride home. My S&W M+P 15-22 was worth every cent.

I am not and never was a good three position rifle shooter. Particularly standing. My steadiness has always been poor.
The same applies to my handgun shooting. I simply cannot hold steady. I am improving but seem to have reached my limits or nearly so. I will never be a good enough shot to be competitive.
That said, I usually finish a handgun session by shooting at a silhouette target at 8 yards which is the distance from my bedroom door to the front door of my house. It puts things in proper perspective for my biggest need for accuracy. Yesterday, I put 30 rounds into the X ring with no misses with my model 19 revolver.
I was having a good day.

[SSGOldfart]

Yes I would say that over the years shooting bugholes just got to plan. I think most of us have gotten better as the years drag on. I'm more likely to be happy hitting my POA then having a bunghole high and to the left. I'm just wanting to hit what I'm shooting at. Every timebigsmyl2: