Define accurate...Send me the pics guys. I mean really. I love all this bs about how the gun's effective range is... or is accurate to a distance of.....
Those are just benchmarks of a weapon's general characteristics and are used for comparison purposes.
The accuracy of many of the weapons in the game, while attainable, are far too consistently accurate to even be remotely compared to what happens "in real life". What about variances in ammunition loads. Manufacturing tolerances, windage, dirty barrels?....and on and on and on.
We've not even gotten into the realm of the individual shooter's skills. (This is by no means a braggard statement, I'm merely making a point...) Take my customized Remington 700. From a rest with a floated barrel, 4-10x power scope, and hand loaded ammunition (that through trial and error have found a load that works well with my rifle) I can punch holes in a quarter at 100 yards with 8 of 10 shots. That's from a rest, wasting the first round (to warm the barrel), and then shooting at intervals (not one shot right behind the other...because as the barrel heats, the rounds start to climb).
With factory rounds, I'd hit the black but the grouping would suck comparatively and the rifle would have to be re-sighted. Just let me stand and shoot free form.....hah! I
might hit the black if I use the sling. Now...lets try this with open sights.....lol....riiiggghhttt.
Now I'm past my prime. But even in my prime, though I didn't come close to equaling the master marksmen in my class at meets, I did win Master a time or two (but that was usually with pistols
).
My point is, the average GI is in the battle to throw lead at the enemy, not to take target practice. Its not the accuracy of the weaponry that wins the battle, its the side with the most lead in the air that usually wins the day. (There's a quote about that somewhere).
Floyd
