Accuracy Guarantees from Rifle Manufacturers

South Pender

South Pender

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
75   0   0
Location
Vancouver
I Ran across this 2022 article from Outdoor Life recently and think it's an interesting read.

https://www.outdoorlife.com/guns/rifle-accuracy-guarantee/

To me, these guarantees are just about meaningless and really just constitute another sales gimmick. As pointed out in the article, there are many ways that a manufacturer can claim that such a guarantee is justified. To me, the most obvious is that just about any rifle/scope combination is capable of producing a single 1.0" or smaller group at 100 yards. If you shoot enough groups, in the end, one will match the guarantee. That's the one where your wiggles matched the rifle's wobbles just right. The remaining groups that were larger than 1.0" can then be disregarded. I suspect that this is the way that the gun maker justifies the stated guarantee (if, in fact, any groups were shot at all), the reasoning being that, if the rifle can make one group better than 1.0", it is eligible for the guarantee.

I think that this logic is what's behind countless shooters claiming that their rifle "will shoot 1/2" groups all day long." The shooter manages to shoot one 1/2" group during a session, although most groups were considerably larger. To me, it is the aggregate, or average group size, that indexes a rifle's accuracy. I like the NRA's 5x5 method of assessing and reporting rifle accuracy. They take the average group size of 5 consecutive 5-shot groups at 100 yards. The "consecutive" part of this is important. They don't cherry-pick the five best groups shot and report that average; they include all groups shot when obtaining the average.

Just some food for thought....
 
Last edited:
The more I read firearm company marketing wank, the more I realise that it's just the same as marketing wank from tool companies.

More power, more better.
More accuracy, more better.

In the end, it's the loose wingnut on the trigger that's the cause of all or at least most of the success and failures of shooting.
 
People want to get the best rifle for their money I guess, so the marketing makes sense (even if it can't be proven in any real world situation).

For me the bigger question is why it even matters (except maybe for varminting). If a hunter can't hit a deer or moose in the vitals at reasonable hunting ranges, it wasn't because the rifle can't didn't come with a sub-moa guarantee.

A rifle that groups 2 inches (or even more) at 100yds can still be a fine hunting rifle if it's properly sighted in, and the operator knows how to use it. ... if the marketing department told that little truth though, nobody would buy their stuff.

Owning a premium rifle, doesn't make you a better shooter or hunter - just like owning a race car doesn't make you a race car driver.

Still, there's nothing wrong with wanting the best rifle you can afford - repeatable accuracy is part of that.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Good points, Canuck65. When one brings shooter accuracy (apart from rifle accuracy) into the equation, the difference in the practical in-the-field accuracy of the shooter-rifle combination between a 1" rifle, a 1.5" rifle, and a 2" rifle is completely negligible. As just one example, if the shooter is capable, with a perfect 0 MOA rifle of keeping his shots within a 4" diameter circle at 100 yards in a typical hunting setting (which is pretty good in such less-than-ideal conditions), then the 1" rifle will keep the shots within a 4.12" diameter circle, the 1.5" rifle, a 4.27" diameter circle, and the 2" rifle, a 4.47" circle. Rifle accuracy is completely swamped by shooter accuracy in this equation. So, in this sense, the gunmakers' accuracy guarantee--when considered in the big-game hunting-rifle context--is little more than advertising bumf.

Edit. Just to summarize the above example in case it was unclear, I'm noting that in a practical field setting in which the hunter is a pretty good shot, his 2 MOA rifle will keep his shots within a circle just .35" larger in diameter at 100 yards than will his 1 MOA rifle--a 4.47" circle (2 MOA rifle) vs a 4.12" circle (1 MOA rifle). And at 300 yards his 2 MOA rifle will put his shots into a 13.41" circle, whereas his 1 MOA rifle will put them into a 12.36" circle (a mere 1" difference). So pretty much a completely trivial advantage in the typical big-game hunting setting for the 1 MOA rifle.

It could be argued that the 1.0 or .50 MOA rifle will yield a much more-noticeable advantage in a varmint-hunting context with a dedicated varmint rifle--particularly colony varmint hunting at long range, often from a portable bench.
 
Last edited:
You are 100% correct, all it has to do is shoot a 1" group or less at 100 yards, once, to make their guarantee. Accuracy guarantee is nothing more than a sales tactic by the manufacturer.

It more has to do with the guy behind it and the ammo you're feeding it, with all things equal (ie wind)

That being said, if I spend the kind of money on a cadex or a high end Mark V and it barely shoots 1" at 100, I wouldn't be happy. Thats the reason I sold my Mark V Backcountry. I tried 3 different types of Weatherby "premium" ammo, along with over 150 rounds of reloads trying different leads, powders, seating depths etc. Tried different scopes, ensured everything was tight, barrel was free floated etc. The best it shot was 0.86" at 100, once. Would it kill a deer? Absolutely it would, but my $500 Savage 11 in 243 shoots way better and I don't feel bad beating it up carrying it. So the Mark V went down the road. But my series 1 257 Vanguard is stupid accurate so maybe I got a lemon? Who knows. It turned me off the Mark V's though.
 
Obviously if a guy buys a 300 mag and he can't stand the recoil of a 22 mag he could have a rifle that shoots into one hole and not hit the side of elephant.
 
Canuck65 said:
People want to get the best rifle for their money I guess, so the marketing makes sense (even if it can't be proven in any real world situation).

For me the bigger question is why it even matters (except maybe for varminting). If a hunter can't hit a deer or moose in the vitals at reasonable hunting ranges, it wasn't because the rifle can't didn't come with a sub-moa guarantee.

A rifle that groups 2 inches (or even more) at 100yds can still be a fine hunting rifle if it's properly sighted in, and the operator knows how to use it. ... if the marketing department told that little truth though, nobody would buy their stuff.

Owning a premium rifle, doesn't make you a better shooter or hunter - just like owning a race car doesn't make you a race car driver.

Still, there's nothing wrong with wanting the best rifle you can afford - repeatable accuracy is part of that.

Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

:agree: This fer sure. ^
 
Interesting article, I disagree about him saying a three shot group doesn’t mean anything. If you shoot a three shot group and it is 4 moa, sending another 7 shots down range will not turn it into a 1 moa rifle.

I recently went through this, bought a Sauer 7mm Rem Mag, Sauer guarantees 1 moa or less accuracy. This rifle would got group worth crap with whatever load tried, four different bullet weights, factory ammo and hand loads, all sucked. Even had two other people shoot it all with the same results. Sent it back for warranty and they tested and confirmed it would not shoot well but did not know why. They replaced the rifle. The replacement was a little better than the first one but not great. I did manage to get a 3/4 moa 3 shot group, then the group immediately after that went 3.5 moa, that’s with barrel cooling in between shots and on a calm day. After a averaging all groups, it’s more like a 2 moa rifle.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if any warranty like this is worth a damn in Canada. I do know it's worth something down South.

Many manufacturers will test rifles sent back for poor accuracy so at least you can get your lemon fixed or replaced.
 
Accuracy depends on the person pulling the trigger and whether your scope system is set up correctly (no loose screws /mounts) then the person complains that the rifle doesn't shoot MOA at 200 yards and beyond not realizing that the scope is set for a 100 yard parallax. I've seen it all - as others have pointed out I do not buy rifles on accuracy gurarantees but rather build quality.
 
I would hate to be Fierce or Christensen, for sure they put out some duds, but I would bet 50% of the warranty rifles that get sent in actually have nothing wrong and are likely sub-moa rifles when setup correctly. The things I have seen at a gun range used to be surprising, now its just another one of them that bought a marketing gun and think they can shoot well. Great marketing, but you can’t buy skills.
 
When Kleingunther brought out their 1/2 MOA guarantee, Guns and Ammo did an article on the rifle .
They were able to shoot 1/2" at 100 yards with factory ammo, but the only ammo they were able to do it with was Federal- but they were able to do it .
I found it interesting in a curious way....
Cat
 
Well if I buy a rifle with a 1 MOA accuracy guarantee and it shoots 4” MOA well at least I’ve got a written accuracy guarantee from that company and this was the case one time for me and a $3500 Weatherby Mark V 6.5-300 right after the cartridge was introduced I ordered a custom shop rifle, it wouldn’t shoot less than 4 MOA and sometimes 6 MOA at 100 yards, factory ammo, handloads, two different scopes, 4 different shooters, 2 gunsmiths shooting it and nope

It went back to Weatherby and after a year of waiting I got my money back, once I asked Adam Weatherby for my money back it was in my account 3 days later, so I will give them that.

So imho the accuracy guarantee does give the consumer some support and a guideline to go by, getting them to honor it……thats whole nother topic
 
I'm not offended by or opposed to accuracy guarantees.... but if a rifle comes with a 10 round mag, it better put all 10 in one hole!

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom