I can see where "500yds muzzleloader accuracy" is an oxymoron to the uninformed. I would say "cheap muzzleloader offering precision and accuracy" is contradictory. Reservations about spending close to a grand on a rifle is not contradictory or an oxymoron; its a reasonable concern for a guy on a budget.
The juxtaposition of cost and performance is called cost/benefit analysis; what it usually offers up is that performance costs money and tiny gains over what is actually needed cost quite a lot more. For example, a Knight will get 99% of your shooting done, a Rem UM will too and cost similar money. A conversion on a 700ML will set you back $1100-$2000. A smokeless muzzleloader on a CF action can cost upwards of $4000 but has not gained an appreciable advantage over the Knight, just some conveniences.
Same can be said of centerfire guns. If you have a gun that is capable of 1MOA you are in good shape. It costs more money to get a gun that will produce .5MOA, day in and day out. A gun that will reliably produce .3MOA groups costs quite a lot more.
Optics too, how much do you really need. Lots of guys are shooting Bushnell Elite Tacticals in matches and winning. It costs more to go to a Nightforce with comparable features. A Schmidt and Bender costs 1/3 again as much.
Is one really 3x as good and does it justify 3x the cost?
