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?
Dude, what boat are you sailing on? What conversion are you reffering to?
And if you are going to quote someone, at least quote them accurately. "Accuracy out to 500 yards and reservations about the cost of a Remington ML are oximorons."
